Hi! > >> > If my understanding is correct, a wakelock is a mechanism that, if held, will > >> > prevent the system from (automatically) entering a sleep state, but why do we > >> > need a number of such wakelocks instead of just one reference counter with the > >> > rule that (automatic) suspend can only happen if the counter is zero? > >> > >> Using wakelocks instead of a global reference count ensures that your > >> request cannot be cleared by someone else. > > > > Decreasing the refcount without increasing it would have been a bug, IMO. > > Yes, but if all you have is a global reference count, you can't tell > where the bug is. ... > >> and detailed stats. > > > > Well, I'm not sure how this is useful in the long run. > > You may want to know which app drained your battery. _If_ we want to allow userspace to hold wakelocks (better name could be awakelock or nosleeplock?) then some way of displaying them is required. 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
