On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:23:03 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. > > > > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup > > guarantees, latencies ... > > Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due > to expire. In your specific current implementation. It matters a hell of a lot in most cases. Alan -- 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
