Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:07:20AM -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote:

> If the primary difference between sleep and suspend is not scheduling  
> processes, instead of messing with oppurtinistic suspend/suspend  
> blockers/wakelocks/etc, why not just 'temporarily' change the timer fuzz  
> value to a very large value (say an hour). That would still let things  
> like openoffice saves ahve a fair chance to trigger before the battery  
> died completely, but would wake the system so infrequently that it will 
> be effectivly the same as a full suspend.

Because it only affects processes that sleep. It's a question of how 
much pathology you want to be able to tolerate.

-- 
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/