On Monday 03 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 02 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > >> On Sun, 2 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >> > Hmm. It doesn't seem to be possible to create two different suspend blockers > >> > using the same file handle. So, what exactly is a process supposed to do to > >> > use two suspend blockers at the same time? > >> > >> Open the file twice, thereby obtaining two file handles. > > > > Well, that's what I thought. > > > > I must admit I'm not really comfortable with this interface. IMO it would > > be better if _open() created the suspend blocker giving it a name based on > > the name of the process that called it. Something like > > "<process name>_<timestamp>" might work at first sight. > > > > Alternatively, "<process_name><number>", where <number> is 0 for the first > > suspend blocker created by the given process, 1 for the second one etc., also > > seems to be doable. > > I think it is important to let user-space specify the name. If a > process uses multiple suspend blockers, it is impossible to tell what > each one is used for if they are automatically named. Well, the problem is the only purpose of this is user space debugging, isn't it? Now, while I don't think it's generally bad to provide kernel interfaces helping to debug user space, I'm not quite sure if that should be done at the expense of the clarity of kernel-user space interfaces. I wonder how many cases there are in which distinguishing between suspend blockers used by the same user space task is practically relevant. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
