From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:39:19 +0200 Message-ID: <200906081539.20459.oliver__24445.3295636506$1244468456$gmane$org@neukum.org> References: <20090608131159.GA15100@srcf.ucam.org> <20090608132235.GC13214@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090608132235.GC13214@elte.hu> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 8. Juni 2009 15:22:35 schrieb Ingo Molnar: > What will the 'user space policy' bit do what the kernel cannot? > > If you mean the user has to configure something manually - that wont > really happen in practice. We are happy if they know where to put > those USB sticks in ;-) User space need not be the user. Currently user space doesn't tell the kernel how much functionality it needs. open/close give a binary opposition which badly maps onto the graduated capabilities devices have. For example do you really need every key pressed while the screen saver is running or is it enough for the keyboard to be able to generate a wakeup event? Regards Oliver