On Fri 2009-02-27 15:07:14, Uli Luckas wrote: > On Friday, 27. February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2009-02-13 17:49:57, Uli Luckas wrote: > > > On Friday, 13. February 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > Userland ABI would then be a single /dev/inhibit_suspend, > > > > with the counter being bumped each time an application opens it. It'll > > > > automatically be dropped if the application exits without cleaning up. > > > > > > > > This seems simpler and also avoids any arguments about the naming > > > > scheme. What am I missing? > > > > > > Opening and closing an fd sounds like a lot of overhead. Taking and > > > releasing locks if going to be a called with very highg frequency. I'd go > > > for an ioctl. > > > > Ehm? > > > > And introduce nasty interface, and probably slower too since open() is > > time-critical and ioctl() is not? Or do you have benchmarks? > > No, just specualting as open() needs to do a directory lookup. It also needs > to do book keeping. I'd be surprised if open was faster then ioctl. Unless you measure how much slower it is... > On the otherhand if you consider ioctl nasty, maybe write() is an option? You want sleepvetos to be automatically unlocked/freed on close and process exit/kill, so neither write nor ioctl is the right interface. -- (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
