From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:14:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20090213191426.GA1379@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <200902131746.42914.u.luckas@road.de> <20090213170518.GA29902@srcf.ucam.org> <200902131913.54154.u.luckas@road.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200902131913.54154.u.luckas@road.de> 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: Uli Luckas Cc: Brian Swetland , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, "ncunningham@crca.org.au" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 07:13:52PM +0100, Uli Luckas wrote: > On Friday, 13. February 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > The daemon holds the lock in the first place. > When did the daemon take the lock? When it anticipated the process would > crash? When it was first asked to. In this model invidual applications wouldn't take locks themselves - it would be up to the daemon to handle the kernel interaction. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org