On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:17:58 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:06:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:59 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > It will, when it gets unblocked from whatever thing it got stuck on.
>
> It's blocked on the screen being turned off. It's supposed to be reading
> a network packet. How does it ever get to reading the network packet?
Thats a stupid argument. If you write broken code then it doesn't work.
You know if I do
ls < unopenedfifo
it blocks too.
There is a difference between dealing with apps that overconsume
resources and arbitarily broken code (which your suspend blocker case
doesn't fix either but makes worse).
Can we stick to sane stuff ?
--
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
