Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface

Alan Stern
2009-02-08T21:40:07Z

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they
> would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I
> believe something like that is neccessary.

krefs don't have name strings for keeping track of who has been
incrementing or decrementing their counters. And it's true that krefs
are nearly undebuggable. But somehow we've managed to struggle along
without adding names to krefs. Why should wakelocks be any different?

Alan Stern