On Friday 27 February 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > To summarize, we can: > > > * Use a refcount such that automatic suspend will only be possible if it's > > > equal to zero (but that need not be the only criterion). > > > * Use a per-device flag in dev_pm_info that will be set whenever the device > > > driver increases the refcount and unset whenever the driver decreases the > > > refcount. > > > * Use a per-process flag that will be set whenever the process increases the > > > refcount and unset whenever the process decreases the refcount. > > > > Yes, that sounds sane, and that's how reasonable wakelock > > implementation should look like. > > One small point: If you add a per-device flag and a per-process flag as > described above, then drivers and processes must not acquire nested > references. > > Obviously this is fixable, but it's worth mentioning... Yes, it's important to remeber IMO. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
