On Sunday 08 February 2009, Alan Stern 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? Yeah, I don't really see why. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
