2010/6/4 Dmitry Torokhov :
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:44:59PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
>> >> Neil Brown wrote:
>> >> >
>
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:44:59PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
> >> Neil Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And this decision (to block s
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:21 -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> And let's be blunt. If in the future the Android team (which I'm not
> a member of) decides that they have invested more engineering time
> than they can justify from a business perspective, the next time
> someone starts whining on a blog
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:43:06PM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
> > I guess it becomes an question of economics for you then. Does the cost of
> > whatever user-space changes are required exceed the value of using an
> > upstream
> > kernel? Both the cost and the value would be very hard to esti
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> The current suspend-blocker proposal already involves userspace
>> changes (it's different than our existing wakelock interface), and
>> we're certainly not opposed to any/all userspace changes on principle,
>> but on the other hand we're no
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:05:18 -0700
Brian Swetland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> > The user-space suspend daemon avoids losing wake-events by using
> >> > fcntl(F_OWNER) to ensure it gets a signal wh
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 19:44:59 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
> >> Neil Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And this decision (to block suspend
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
>> Neil Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
>> > not in userspace?
>>
>> We
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:32:44 -0700
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
> > Neil Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the
> > > driver,
> > > not in use
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
> > not in userspace?
>
> Well, it fits. The requirement is a direct consequence of the int
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:05:21 +0200
Florian Mickler wrote:
> Could someone perhaps make a recap on what are the problems with the
> API? I have no clear eye (experience?) for that (or so it seems).
Good interface design is an acquired taste. And it isn't always easy to
explain satisfactorily. Bu
On Thursday 03 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > - Would this fix the "bug"??
> > > - and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address?
> > > - or are the requir
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> > - Would this fix the "bug"??
> > - and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address?
> > - or are the requirements on user-space too onerous?
>
> In theory wakeup ev
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
> > > Next step was "can it be closed".
> > > You see
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown wrote:
>
> And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
> not in userspace?
Well, it fits. The requirement is a direct consequence of the intimate
knowledge the driver has about the driven devices.
Or if you get in an u
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> > The user-space suspend daemon avoids losing wake-events by using
>> > fcntl(F_OWNER) to ensure it gets a signal whenever any important wake-event
>> > is ready to be read by user-spa
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner :
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/6/2 Neil Brown :
> >> > There would still need to be some sort of communication between the the
> >> > suspend daemon on any event daemon to ensure that the events had bee
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 02:12:10 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/2 Neil Brown :
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
> > Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
> >> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> >
> >>
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:50:39 +0200
Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:14 +1000
> Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > I cannot imagine why it would take multiple seconds to scan a keypad.
> > Can you explain that?
> >
> > Do you mean while keys are held pressed? Maybe you don't get a wake-up
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/2 Neil Brown :
>> > There would still need to be some sort of communication between the the
>> > suspend daemon on any event daemon to ensure that the events had been
>> > processed. This could be very light weight in
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/2 Neil Brown :
> > There would still need to be some sort of communication between the the
> > suspend daemon on any event daemon to ensure that the events had been
> > processed. This could be very light weight interaction. The point though
> >
2010/6/2 Neil Brown :
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
>> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
>> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think you have ac
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:14 +1000
Neil Brown wrote:
> I cannot imagine why it would take multiple seconds to scan a keypad.
> Can you explain that?
>
> Do you mean while keys are held pressed? Maybe you don't get a wake-up event
> on key-release? In that case your user-space daemon could block
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think you have acknowledged that there is a race wi
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
>> > Next step was "can it be closed".
>> > You see
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
> > Next step was "can it be closed".
> > You seem to suggest that it can, but you describe it as a "work arou
26 matches
Mail list logo
