Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

mark gross
2010-05-05T20:09:06Z

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:31:31PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 06:50:50PM -0700, mark gross wrote:
>
> > In my sequence above I had the modem driver "magically" knowing to fail
> > this suspend attempt. (that "magic" wasn't fully thought out though.)
>
> If the modem driver knows to "magically" fail a suspend attempt until it
> knows that userspace has consumed the event, you have something that
> looks awfully like suspend blockers.
>
> > There *has* to be a better way.
>
> But nobody has reasonably proposed one and demonstrated that it works.
> We've had over a year to do so and failed, and I think it's pretty
> unreasonable to ask Google to attempt to rearchitect based on a
> hypothetical.
>

These are not new issues being raised. They've had over a year to
address them, and all thats really happened was some sed script changes
from wake_lock to suspend_blocker. Nothing is really different
here.

Rearchitecting out of tree code is as silly thing for you to expect from
a community member.

sigh, lets stop wasting time and just merge it then.

I'm finished with this thread until I do some rearchecting and post
something that looks better to me. I'll look for this stuff in 2.6.34
or 35.

--mgross
ps It think the name suspend blocker is worse than wake-lock. I'd
change it back.