[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B41E318.4050809@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:46:16 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...glemail.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Bartłomiej Zimoń <uzi18@...pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, awalls@...ix.net,
danborkmann@...glemail.com, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [suspend/resume] Re: userspace notification from module
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2010, Bartłomiej Zimoń wrote:
>> And what do You think about sending extra signals to processes?
>
> I don't see a problem with this in principle, although I don't think signals
> are very suitable for this particular purpose, because you need two-way
> communication between the power manager and the processes it's going to
> notify (because it has to wait for the processes to finish their preparations
> and to tell it that they are ready).
Again, just to abandon some thoughts... do you really need that "two-way
communication"? I mean if the kernel delivers that specific signal to
the process/task_struct [do_signal():handle_signal()] it has to save the
original execution context that will later on be restored after the
non-default signal handling function returns. This is our ACK /
notification for the successful return of the programs "suspend
handler". The kernel module (if such exists) could be notified about
that for instance by a simple notifier hook within kernelspace. I mean
if I see this right, the "two-way" is just for the ACK isn't it?
Best regards,
Daniel
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (262 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists