Dnia 5 stycznia 2010 22:26 Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:07:06 +0100 > Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > rjw@xxxxxxx said: > > >> > 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). > > > > Wouldn't there need to be dependecy tracking for the userspace processes? A > > process couldn't signal "done" until it know there's no more work to do, which > > requires all other processes to finish up first. > > No. 99% of the processes don't care about suspend. They don't need > notifications or anything. > The few that do care, register themselves with the power manager. They > get notified before suspend and the power manager might wait until they > tell him that they are ready. > A special case are processes that only want to inhibit suspend - the CD > burning application case - they just tell the power manager "I am > important and you must not suspend now". They do this even if there is > no suspend notification, and once they are done with the critical part > of their work, they remove their "inhibit flag". > > This all works pretty well already, and is really not very complicated. So pm could be very simple, and i think we don't need more. I want ask You how usualy such user (not root) process notification is done, You are talking about pm-utils right? Best regards. Bartłomiej Zimoń PLD Linux, Kadu Team, FreeRunner user http://kadu-im.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
