Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions (version 3)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> > earlysuspend is an ugly hack and wakelock is very wrong name at the
> >> > very least... as seen in previous discussion. Can we get that fixed?
> >>
> >> I don't have a fix for earlysuspend, but it is far less important than
> >> wakelocks, so I can drop it from the patch series if that is
> >> preferred.
> >>
> >> Regarding the name, I don't agree with your statement that wakelock is
> >> a very wrong name. Like I said before, you can view it as a
> >> reader/writer lock where the readers protect the wake state of the
> >> system. That said, if there is a better name that more than one person
> >> can agree on, I can rename the api. Here is a list of suggestions I
> >> have seen so far along with the api I think they dictate if the
> >> existing functionality is to be preserved:
> >
> >
> >> suspend_inhibitor: (from inhibit_suspend)
> >> - api: suspend_inhibitor_init, suspend_inhibitor_destroy,
> >> suspend_inhibit, suspend_inhibit_timeout, suspend_uninhibit
> >> - pros: The effect is more obvious than *_lock.
> >> - cons: Does not match android user space api (but less confusing than
> >> suspend/sleep_lock).
> >
> > I like this one, as does rafael, so :-).
> >
> > I thought you are switching to /dev based api anyway so rename should
> > not be a problem?
> 
> There is no requirement for the kernel api to match the user-space
> api, it is just less confusing. The android java apis provide a
> wakelock interface. We cannot change this api, but the both the in
> kernel api and the api from the kernel to user space can be changed.
> 
> I did a quick poll here. 2 people preferred suspend_inhibitor and 3
> people preferred wake_lock. The people who preferred wake_lock did not
> like the word inhibit(or). Block(er) was suggested as an alternative.

"blocker" would be fine too, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks,
Rafael