From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Mickler Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during suspend Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20100622081803.4d472542__13006.0775009499$1277187674$gmane$org@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <20100621055522.GE9735@gvim.org> <20100622015837.GC12795@gvim.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100622015837.GC12795@gvim.org> 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: markgross@thegnar.org Cc: 640e9920@gmail.com, Neil Brown , Dmitry Torokhov , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Matthew@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:58:37 -0700 mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com> wrote: > wrong. They are about 1) adding opportunistic suspend, and 2) adding > critical sections to block suspend. > > No race issues where ever talked about until alternative solutions > where put up. The whole and only reason to even define the term "critical sections" is when you need to define "a race". Or vice versa. A race is prevented by defining critical sections and protecting these against concurrent access. [..snip..] [some rant that alan is not familiar with android userspace..] Are you suggesting that only android developers are supposed to talk about this? This is a pretty basic thing. It has only to do with system suspend. (And using system suspend aggressively) > > --mgross > Cheers, Flo