From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions (version 3) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:54:26 +0100 Message-ID: <200902240054.27878.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1234316955-31304-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090222134852.GB1436@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline 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?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Pavel Machek 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