[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090227142946.GA13650@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:29:46 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Wakelocks done right are single atomic_t... and if you set it to 0,
> > you just unblock "sleeper" thread or something. Zero polling and very
> > simple...
>
> Except that you have to check all of the wakelocks periodically in a loop =>
> polling. So?
Why do you need to check them? If you're taking this approach you just
have something like:
suspend_unblock() {
if (atomc_dec_and_test(&suspend_lock))
suspend();
}
and then check that the lock count is still 0 after device_suspend().
There's no need to poll.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists