Re: Changes to PM layer break userspace

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



> > The existence of the power/state interface wasn't a bug - it was a 
> > deliberate decision to add it. It's the only reason the 
> > dpm_runtime_suspend() interface exists. 

Actually, if we noticed power/state during PM framework review, it
would have been killed. It is just way too ugly.

> > > In contrast, the /sys/devices/.../power/state API has never had many
> > > users beyond developers trying to test their drivers (without taking
> > > the whole system into a low power state, which probably didn't work
> > > in any case), and has *always* been problematic.  And the change you
> > > object to doesn't "break" anything fundamental, either.  Everything
> > > still works.
> > 
> > It's used on every Ubuntu and Suse system,
> Odd how the relevant Suse developers didn't mention any issues with
> those files going away, any of the times problems with them were
> discussed on the PM list.  Also, I have a Suse system that doesn't
> use those files for anything ... maybe only newer release use it.

Not on *every* suse system. power/state is known to oops kernels, so
it is only enabled when user explicitely asks for 'dangerous aggresive
experimental power saving' or something like that.
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux