Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work 
> > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't 
> > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation.
> 
> How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup
> guarantees, latencies ...

Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due 
to expire. Wakeup guarantees can be provided via the suspend blocker 
implementation.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/