On Sunday 08 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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. BTW, I don't like the name "wakelocks" at all. They are not locks in the traditional sense, they are just flags preventing something (suspend) from happening. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
