Hi!
> >> @@ -392,6 +393,9 @@ static void suspend_finish(void)
> >>
> >>
> >> static const char * const pm_states[PM_SUSPEND_MAX] = {
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND_BLOCK
> >> + [PM_SUSPEND_ON] = "on",
> >> +#endif
> >> [PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY] = "standby",
> >> [PM_SUSPEND_MEM] = "mem",
> >> };
> >
> > This allows you to write "on" to the other interfaces where that makes
> > no sense.... right?
>
> state_store starts iterating at PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY, so don't think so.
Good.
> >> +bool suspend_is_blocked(void)
> >> +{
> >> + if (WARN_ONCE(!enable_suspend_blockers, "ignoring suspend blockers\n"))
> >> + return 0;
> >> + return !!atomic_read(&suspend_block_count);
> >> +}
> >
> > Yes, if enable_suspend_blockers is one, we are in deep trouble.
>
> It just means that you compiled suspend blocker support into the
> kernel, but used an old interface to enter suspend. It warns if
> enable_suspend_blockers is 0 not 1.
I do not think WARN_ONCE() should be that easy to trigger. WARN is
very scary animal; better use normal printk?
> >> +/**
> >> + * suspend_blocker_init() - Initialize a suspend blocker
> >> + * @blocker: The suspend blocker to initialize.
> >> + * @name: The name of the suspend blocker to show in
> >> + * /proc/suspend_blockers
> >
> > I don't think suspend_blockers should go to /proc. They are not process-related.
>
> I moved that comment to the stats patch. It is still in procfs though,
> as it is most similar to other procfs entries. It is not allowed under
> the sysfs rules, and we do not want to enable debugfs on a production
> system since it exposes some unsafe interfaces.
You have to sort this out somehow. It does not belong to /proc.
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
