On Friday, 13. February 2009, Matthew Garrett 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. That's absouletely wrong. With wake locks, you are in a pre suspend state and stay there until all wakelocks are released. Then you go to sleep. With -EBUSY the kernel gives up on suspend until some source triggers it again. When exactly should suspend then be retried? Uli -- ------- ROAD ...the handyPC Company - - - ) ) ) Uli Luckas Head of Software Development ROAD GmbH Bennigsenstr. 14 | 12159 Berlin | Germany fon: +49 (30) 230069 - 62 | fax: +49 (30) 230069 - 69 url: www.road.de Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 96688 B Managing director: Hans-Peter Constien _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
