Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday 02 May 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2010-05-02 22:10:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 May 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > Adds /sys/power/policy that selects the behaviour of /sys/power/state.
> > > > After setting the policy to opportunistic, writes to /sys/power/state
> > > > become non-blocking requests that specify which suspend state to enter
> > > > when no suspend blockers are active. A special state, "on", stops the
> > > > process by activating the "main" suspend blocker.
> > > 
> > > As I explained before (and got no reply),  the proposed interface is
> > > ugly. It uses one sysfs file to change semantics of another one.
> > 
> > In fact this behavior was discussed at the LF Collab Summit and no one
> > involved had any problem with that.
> 
> Well, I explained why I disliked in previous mail in more details,

We do exactly the same thing with 'pm_test', so I'm not sure what the problem is.

> and neither you nor Arve explained why it is good solution.

Because it's less confusing.  Having two different attributes returning
almost the same contents and working in a slightly different way wouldn't be
too clean IMO.

Also it reduces code duplication slightly.

> I was not on LF Collab summit, so unfortunately I can't comment on that.
> 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arve Hj??nnev??g <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > NAK.
> > 
> > Ignored.
> 
> WTF?

Literally.  I'm not going to take that NAK into consideration.

Rafael
--
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/