Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

Paul E. McKenney
2010-08-05T02:39:39Z

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 03:08:33PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > having this conversation? :) It'd be good to have some feedback from
> > Google as to whether this satisfies their functional requirements.
>
> That is "this"? The merged code? If so, no it does not satisfy our
> requirements. The in kernel api, while offering similar functionality
> to the wakelock interface, does not use any handles which makes it
> impossible to get reasonable stats (You don't know which pm_stay_awake
> request pm_relax is reverting). The proposed in user-space interface
> of calling into every process that receives wakeup events before every
> suspend call is also not compatible with existing apps.

I should have asked this earlier... What exactly are the apps'
compatibility constraints? Source-level APIs? Byte-code class-library
invocations? C/C++ dynamic linking? C/C++ static linking (in other
words, syscall)?

Thanx, Paul