Re: [PATCH 05/11] PM: Enable early suspend through /sys/power/state

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Sat 2009-01-31 10:49:16, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
> 
> > > No, please don't break compatibility like this. You changed semantics
> > > of 'mem'...
> > >
> > > Just add another two states, for example "auto-mem" and
> > > "auto-standby", and make them enter mem/standby when required.
> > >
> > 
> > What would you want to happen if someone writes "mem"? If we just call
> > enter_state, it will fail and return an error if a wakelock is locked.
> > We can call request_suspend_state and then wait for another thread to
> > write "on", but this still requires user-space changes to work
> > correctly. If the goal is to allow the kernel to be compiled with
> > wakelock and early suspend support while preserving the old behaviour
> > if wakelocks are not used, then the first option is better.
> 
> This is exactly what I am complaining about in another thread.  The 
> code should be written so that when the user writes "mem", the system 
> goes into suspend even if some wakelocks are locked.

Yes please.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html