From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Input: Hold wake lock while event queue is not empty. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:18:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20090214001814.GA6287@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20090212113126.GC28176@srcf.ucam.org> <20090213003402.GA8393@srcf.ucam.org> <20090213004054.GB8454@srcf.ucam.org> <20090213005704.GA8721@srcf.ucam.org> <20090214000911.GB5764@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= Cc: swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, u.luckas@road.de, ncunningham@crca.org.au List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 04:13:22PM -0800, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > Which is why I offered to make it configurable. If you don't trust your userspace then your argument suggests every wake = lock that faces userspace has to have a timeout. When the logical = extension to an answer to a problem is "Add a configuration option to = almost every driver", you might want to rethink. -- = Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org