On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > No, please don't break compatibility like this. You changed semantics > > of 'mem'... > > > > Just add another two states, for example "auto-mem" and > > "auto-standby", and make them enter mem/standby when required. > > > > What would you want to happen if someone writes "mem"? If we just call > enter_state, it will fail and return an error if a wakelock is locked. > We can call request_suspend_state and then wait for another thread to > write "on", but this still requires user-space changes to work > correctly. If the goal is to allow the kernel to be compiled with > wakelock and early suspend support while preserving the old behaviour > if wakelocks are not used, then the first option is better. This is exactly what I am complaining about in another thread. The code should be written so that when the user writes "mem", the system goes into suspend even if some wakelocks are locked. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
