On Sat 2009-01-31 10:49:16, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Arve Hj?nnev?g 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. Yes please. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
