On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:56:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > If that's what you're aiming for then you don't need to block > > applications on hardware access because they should all already have > > idled themselves. > > Correct, a well behaved app would have. I thought we all agreed that > well behaved apps weren't the problem?
Ok. So the existing badly-behaved application ignores your request and then gets blocked. And now it no longer responds to wakeup events. So you penalise well-behaved applications without providing any benefits to badly-behaved ones. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
