On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I dislike the kernel-side use of wakelocks. They're basically equivalent > to a device returning -EBUSY during the suspend phase, which is > something that can be done without any kernel modifications. I don't get why people object to wakelocks supporting timeouts, but think drivers returning -EBUSY to abort suspend is ok. If suspend fails, the higher level code has to periodically retry until it can succeed. This means that the device is awake for longer than it need to, and you are repeatedly wasting time freezing all tasks and suspending a set of drivers before you get to the driver that is preventing suspend. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
