On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? It sounds like you suggesting that we add another nearly undebuggable interface. Using only a single atomic_t would not allow us to use a wakelock a switch, or to specify a timeout. You could replace the list in the implementation with a single atomic_t by adding more state to each wakelock, but I like my current solution better. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
