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

Arve Hjønnevåg
2009-02-08T23:00:38Z

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.

--
Arve Hjønnevåg