On 12 May 2010 09:36, Paul Fox wrote:
> i understand that hardware does a lot of filtering. i was
> referring specifically to the 1.5's current lack of wake-on-arp
> (thank you for making me realize there's no specific bug open for
> this issue -- though it's buried in #9535)
Filed #10157, speci
john wrote:
> > ...the biggest
> > problem area in terms of suspending and not coming back is the
> > network, and without "wake-on-precisely-what-i'm-waiting-for",
> > that's problematic.
>
> Most wireless and Ethernet chips can be configured to
> ...the biggest
> problem area in terms of suspending and not coming back is the
> network, and without "wake-on-precisely-what-i'm-waiting-for",
> that's problematic.
Most wireless and Ethernet chips can be configured to interrupt or
wake on preci
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 22:31 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:59 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> >> > just fix the kernel so the suspend
> >> > ends when the next process wants to run.
> >>
> >> Have a look at powertop -- you'll never suspend, there are several
> >> hundred wakeu
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:59 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> > just fix the kernel so the suspend
>> > ends when the next process wants to run.
>>
>> Have a look at powertop -- you'll never suspend, there are several
>> hundred wakeups per second.
>
> Did we give up on fixing these?
No, and as Ben men
john wrote:
> Is OLPC's Idle-Suspend not waking up the machine when the next process
> wants to run? No wonder you're having all these problems where it suspends
> and doesn't come back. Don't fix it with 27 kludge patches (to audio
> players, to network managers, etc), just fix the kernel so
> > just fix the kernel so the suspend
> > ends when the next process wants to run.
>
> Have a look at powertop -- you'll never suspend, there are several
> hundred wakeups per second.
Did we give up on fixing these?
(I don't have an XO-1.5 so I can't see its powertop results.)
> If you want to
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:15:21PM -0300, Daniel Drake wrote:
> When connected to a network without a school server (i.e. using salut
> collaboration), if one of the machines is sleeping while another
> machine shares an activity with the neighbourhood, upon wakeup that
> first machine won't see th
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> > just fix the kernel so the suspend
> > ends when the next process wants to run.
>
> Have a look at powertop -- you'll never suspend, there are several
> hundred wakeups per second.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
> just fix the kernel so the suspend
> ends when the next process wants to run.
Have a look at powertop -- you'll never suspend, there are several
hundred wakeups per second.
If you want to do better than super-idling the way that recent kerne
Is OLPC's Idle-Suspend not waking up the machine when the next process
wants to run? No wonder you're having all these problems where it suspends
and doesn't come back. Don't fix it with 27 kludge patches (to audio
players, to network managers, etc), just fix the kernel so the suspend
ends when t
On 10 May 2010 10:59, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Laptops have not yet been handed out here in La Rioja, but a few have
> been handed around to various parts of the MinEd and support staff, so
> we're already seeing some bug reports and user experiences rolling in.
>
> The idle-suspend experience has be
i wrote:
> daniel wrote:
> >
> > 3. After a lid-suspend, the machine frequently sleeps before it has
> > scanned or reconnected for wireless networks. The user sits there
> > waiting and waiting for the network to appear again, and it's not
> > going to appear until they realise what's
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:59:50AM -0300, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Laptops have not yet been handed out here in La Rioja, but a few have
> been handed around to various parts of the MinEd and support staff, so
> we're already seeing some bug reports and user experiences rolling in.
Which build?
> 3.
daniel wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 15:47, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> > Is it suspending in the act of sending or while waiting for the response
> > packet?
>
> Any suggestions on how to identify this?
well, if you can reliably recreate this, it would be
worth turning on powerd tracing so that i
On 10 May 2010 15:47, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> Is it suspending in the act of sending or while waiting for the response
> packet?
Any suggestions on how to identify this?
> I'm curious why the the incoming response packets are not causing a WOL.
This is certainly not working properly, the bug
smith wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 10:38 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
>
> > > 2. The machine suspends frequently while it is loading a web page, and
> > > does not wake up, meaning that the web page doesn't finish loading
> > > until you realise what's happened and intervene
> >
> > i'm going to
On 05/10/2010 10:38 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > 2. The machine suspends frequently while it is loading a web page, and
> > does not wake up, meaning that the web page doesn't finish loading
> > until you realise what's happened and intervene
>
> i'm going to venture a guess that the network t
daniel -- problems noted. i agree with the team that increasing
the timeout to a minutes seems prudent for the time being. i have
some ideas on how to make inhibiting suspend more robust, and
i've been working on the dcon issue(s) (#9631, #9664) in the last
day or so.
daniel wrote:
> Laptops ha
Laptops have not yet been handed out here in La Rioja, but a few have
been handed around to various parts of the MinEd and support staff, so
we're already seeing some bug reports and user experiences rolling in.
The idle-suspend experience has been causing some discomfort.
Specifically 4 cases:
1
20 matches
Mail list logo
