On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:51 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:47:27 -0700 > Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:46 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > >> +To create a suspend blocker from user space, open the suspend_blocker > > >> special > > >> +device file: > > >> + > > >> + fd = open("/dev/suspend_blocker", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); > > >> + > > >> +then optionally call: > > >> + > > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_SET_NAME(strlen(name)), name); > > >> + > > >> +To activate the suspend blocker call: > > >> + > > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_BLOCK); > > >> + > > >> +To deactivate it call: > > >> + > > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_UNBLOCK); > > >> + > > >> +To destroy the suspend blocker, close the device: > > >> + > > >> + close(fd); > > > > > > Urgh, please let the open() be BLOCK, the close() be UNBLOCK, and keep > > > the SET_NAME thing if you really care. > > > > > > > That would be very inefficient. > > > > Also I think it is intended to enforce named suspend blockers. (For > debugging/accounting purposes). I don't think the code as proposed mandates you SET_NAME, and I didn't propose killing that off, you can still SET_NAME after you open() and acquire the thing. Anyway, the whole point is moot since its simply not needed at all. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html