Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010, Bartłomiej Zimoń wrote: >> And what do You think about sending extra signals to processes? > > I don't see a problem with this in principle, although I don't think signals > are very suitable for this particular purpose, because you need two-way > communication between the power manager and the processes it's going to > notify (because it has to wait for the processes to finish their preparations > and to tell it that they are ready). Again, just to abandon some thoughts... do you really need that "two-way communication"? I mean if the kernel delivers that specific signal to the process/task_struct [do_signal():handle_signal()] it has to save the original execution context that will later on be restored after the non-default signal handling function returns. This is our ACK / notification for the successful return of the programs "suspend handler". The kernel module (if such exists) could be notified about that for instance by a simple notifier hook within kernelspace. I mean if I see this right, the "two-way" is just for the ACK isn't it? Best regards, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
