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

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-02-08T23:44:48Z

On Sunday 08 February 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, I don't really see why.

Thanks,
Rafael