On Wed 2009-02-11 16:45:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday 11 February 2009, 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? > > Well, even "sleep lock" would have been better. > > > delay_sleep or delaysleep? block_sleep or blocksleep? Any of the > > above with "sleep" replaced by "suspend"? > > I also thought about "sleep stopper". It reflects what the feature does. :-) 'caffeine' ? :-). Pavel -- (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
