Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 27 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Wakelocks done right are single atomic_t... and if you set it to 0,
> > you just unblock "sleeper" thread or something. Zero polling and very
> > simple...
> 
> Except that you have to check all of the wakelocks periodically in a loop =>
> polling.  So?

Why do you need to check them? If you're taking this approach you just 
have something like:

suspend_unblock() {
	if (atomc_dec_and_test(&suspend_lock))
		suspend();
}

and then check that the lock count is still 0 after device_suspend(). 
There's no need to poll.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux