[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:57:50 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
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>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
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
Hi!
> >> If you ignore wakelocks with timeouts, the current
> >> wakelock interface can be implemented with a global atomic_t to
> >> prevent suspend, and a per wakelock atomic_t to prevent a single
> >> client from changing the global reference count by more than one.
> >>
> >> There are a couple of reasons that I have not done this. It removes
> >> the ability to easily inspect the system when it is not suspending.
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
>
> If you have a single atomic_t and it is not 0, you do not know who
> incremented it.
Which is okay for already debugged system. For debugging, yes some
support can be nice.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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