On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:27:53PM -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:49:14PM -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > > >> spin_lock(&client->buffer_lock); > >> + wake_lock_timeout(&client->wake_lock, 5 * HZ); > > > > Why the timeout version? If your input handler vanishes for more than 5 > > seconds then presumably you should be thinking about watchdoging the > > entire system. > > The timeout allows the system to eventually suspend if someone opened > the input device and but are not reading from it. We hit this once. I > can remove the timeout, but these bugs are more visible in the stats > if we keep timeout since the expire counts will be non-zero. Mm. I'm not convinced about kernel behaviour that's designed to work around userspace failures. The assumption that your input consumer will act within 5 seconds is a policy decision, so should probably be left to userspace. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
