On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2009-02-11 09:58:23, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Brian Swetland wrote: > > > > > [Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>] > > > > > > > > > > wake_lock never blocks. > > > > > > > > Wakelock is really bad name: it is not a lock and it does not protect > > > > wake. I'd say we need better name here. > > > > > > I agree with you here -- I've had this discussion with Arve previously, > > > but have been unable to offer a compelling alternative name. Anybody > > > have a good idea? > > > > delay_sleep or delaysleep? block_sleep or blocksleep? Any of the > > above with "sleep" replaced by "suspend"? > > Actually "sleep_veto" sounded best. I don't like it quite as much because these things don't _veto_ a sleep, they only delay it. But that's a minor point. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
