From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark gross Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] PM: Implement wakelock api. Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:00:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20090209180050.GA29623@linux.intel.com> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-2-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-3-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-4-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090206001020.GC19577@linux.intel.com> <20090207003334.GA13923@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= Cc: swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, u.luckas@road.de, ncunningham@crca.org.au List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 04:47:59PM -0800, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM, mark gross wrote: > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_WAKELOCK_STAT > >> >> + create_proc_read_entry("wakelocks", S_IRUGO, NULL, > >> >> + wakelocks_read_proc, NULL); > >> > > >> > Shouldn't we *not* be using /proc? I think this should be under sys= fs. > >> > >> It is not allowed under sysfs. Debugfs has been suggested, but we > >> don't have debugfs mounted, and we include the wakelock stats in debug > >> reports. > >> > > > > why not under sysfs? > = > The rules for sysfs state that there should be one value or an array > of values per file. > Have you considered creating a misc device in /dev instead? --mgross =