Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea.

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, John Stultz wrote:
> Another use case I've heard about are systems that have firmware updates

Yes, I have heard about people wanting O_PONIES ...

> that are remotely triggered. Should the system go into suspend while the
> firmware update is going on, you end up with a brick.

If someone came up with a firmware update mechanism which is not
coping with unexpected interruption of any kind, then wakelocks are
not making any difference.

Please collect the resulting bricks and shove them back to those who
thought that remote firmware updates do not have to be engineered and
the resulting fallout can be blamed on the kernel.

We have proper mechanisms in place to handle such stuff, but they need
proper overall design and definitely a bit more brain usage than just
yelling "wakelock".

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/