From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:40:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20100805134057.GB20565__20700.1613257036$1281023579$gmane$org@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100801054816.GI2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100804205654.GA4986@srcf.ucam.org> <201008050220.51805.rjw@sisk.pl> 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: david@lang.hm, peterz@infradead.org, swetland@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, florian@mickler.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:02:28PM -0700, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > Which makes the driver and/or network stack changes identical to using > wakelocks, right? I think we're resigned to the fact that we need to indicate wakeup = events in a manner that's pretty equivalent to wakelocks. The only real = issue is what the API looks like. Anyone who's still talking about = cgroups seems to be trying to solve a different problem. -- = Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org