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

Pavel Machek
2009-02-08T23:03:35Z

On Sun 2009-02-08 15:00:38, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> 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?
>
> It sounds like you suggesting that we add another nearly undebuggable interface.
>
> Using only a single atomic_t would not allow us to use a wakelock a
> switch, or to specify a timeout. You could replace the list in the
> implementation with a single atomic_t by adding more state to each
> wakelock, but I like my current solution better.

For the record, I agree here. And... if struct wakelock contains char
* or not is a very small detail.

If wakelocks can be locked from userspace is _not_ a detail; and if
they can we do need the names.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html