On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they > would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I > believe something like that is neccessary. krefs don't have name strings for keeping track of who has been incrementing or decrementing their counters. And it's true that krefs are nearly undebuggable. But somehow we've managed to struggle along without adding names to krefs. Why should wakelocks be any different? Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
