On Fri 2009-02-06 16:47:59, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM, mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_WAKELOCK_STAT
> >> >> + create_proc_read_entry("wakelocks", S_IRUGO, NULL,
> >> >> + wakelocks_read_proc, NULL);
> >> >
> >> > Shouldn't we *not* be using /proc? I think this should be under sysfs.
> >>
> >> It is not allowed under sysfs. Debugfs has been suggested, but we
> >> don't have debugfs mounted, and we include the wakelock stats in debug
> >> reports.
> >>
> >
> > why not under sysfs?
>
> The rules for sysfs state that there should be one value or an array
> of values per file.
Yeah, so fix the wakelocks to be like that. echo "lock wakelock_name
3" > control_file is a wrong interface, anyway.
What about creating wakelocks with echo "3" > wakelock_name in special
directory?
And then you can use readdir in that directory to get your debugging
info...
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
