On Monday 04 January 2010, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > 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? _If_ the kernel sends the signals, which is not I think should be done. Please keep that in the user space. Really. I don't see _any_ good reason for putting such things into the kernel. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
