On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Uli Luckas <u.luckas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 09 February 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Monday 09 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > If wakelocks can be locked from userspace is _not_ a detail; and if >> > they can we do need the names. >> >> Do we? What about one lock per process and using process names? >> Or better process IDs or even thread IDs? >> > I like that idea. A process should be able to hold _one_ wake lock (which > would be released if the process dies). If it turns out, that more then on > lock is convenient for a process, a library can easily agregate these locks. > If the last userspace wake lock is released, the library code can relase the > processes kernel wake lock. >> Is there a limit on the number of wakelocks a user space process can create >> and if not, then why? >> > Agreed as stated above. We should agree right now to switch to one lock per > process. Arve? This would work, but how would you implement it? I'm implementing an ioctl interface that will allow automatic cleanup without modifying the task struct. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
