Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api.

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 05:42:01PM -0600, Woodruff, Richard wrote:

> It is discouraging to hear comments like "we have been talking about for years something else" yet nothing exists or is in open development. Things can evolve in place.

This is userlad-visible ABI. We can't evolve it in place - we need to 
get it right before merging it, otherwise we need to carry on 
maintaining code for an extended period of time in order to ensure that 
there's no userland code that depends on it.

I dislike the kernel-side use of wakelocks. They're basically equivalent 
to a device returning -EBUSY during the suspend phase, which is 
something that can be done without any kernel modifications. I'm more 
interested in the userspace side, but I'd like to know more about what 
sort of constraints userspace is likely to impose. In general kernel 
people respond better to a "Here is a problem statement, here is our 
proposed solution" type statement than "Here is our code".

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org