On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:26:22PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > Yes, that sounds good. No need for giving unnecessary choices :-) > But I had worded the documentation that way with the intention of > explaining why calling mutex_lock() over pm_mutex can be disastrous (which > I mentioned in the commit message as one of the goals of the patch). > I didn't mean it to give the user 2 choices and say please use > [un]lock_system_sleep() preferably. > > Although, we have to notice that unless somebody is acquainted with > these APIs, the first instinct would probably be to directly use > mutex_lock(), until they look up the documentation (hopefully). > So, IMHO, it would do good to keep the explanation in the docs as > it is, in this patch. What do you think? Yeah, sounds good to me. Thanks. -- tejun
