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

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> The main problem is that the entire suspend subsystem is going to work in a
>> different way when suspend blockers are enforced.  Thus IMO it makes sense to
>> provide a switch between the "opportunistic" and "forced" modes, because that
>> clearly indicates to the user (or user space in general) how the whole suspend
>> subsystem actually works at the moment.
>>
>> As long as it's "opportunistic", the system will autosuspend if suspend
>> blockers are not active and the behavior of "state" reflects that.  If you want
>> to enforce a transition, switch to "forced" first.
>>
>> That's not at all confusing if you know what you're doing.  The defailt mode is
>> "forced", so the suspend subsystem works "as usual" by default.  You have to
>> directly switch it to "opportunistic" to change the behavior and once you've
>> done that, you shouldn't really be surprised that the behavior has changed.
>> That's what you've requested after all.
>
> How about changing the contents of /sys/power/state depending on the
> current policy?  When the policy is "forced" it should look the same as
> it does now.  When the policy is "opportunistic" it should contain
> "mem" and "on".

It already does this.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/