Hi! > > earlysuspend is an ugly hack and wakelock is very wrong name at the > > very least... as seen in previous discussion. Can we get that fixed? > > I don't have a fix for earlysuspend, but it is far less important than > wakelocks, so I can drop it from the patch series if that is > preferred. > > Regarding the name, I don't agree with your statement that wakelock is > a very wrong name. Like I said before, you can view it as a > reader/writer lock where the readers protect the wake state of the > system. That said, if there is a better name that more than one person > can agree on, I can rename the api. Here is a list of suggestions I > have seen so far along with the api I think they dictate if the > existing functionality is to be preserved: > suspend_inhibitor: (from inhibit_suspend) > - api: suspend_inhibitor_init, suspend_inhibitor_destroy, > suspend_inhibit, suspend_inhibit_timeout, suspend_uninhibit > - pros: The effect is more obvious than *_lock. > - cons: Does not match android user space api (but less confusing than > suspend/sleep_lock). I like this one, as does rafael, so :-). I thought you are switching to /dev based api anyway so rename should not be a problem? 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
