On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 22:03 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Here's a different example. A process is waiting for a keypress, but >> because it's badly written it's also drawing to the screen at 60 frames >> per second and preventing the system from every going to idle. How do >> you quiesce the system while still ensuring that the keypress will be >> delivered to the application? > > To me it's somewhat of a negative for suspend blockers. Since to solve > the problem you give above you would have to use a suspend blocker in an > asynchronous way (locked in an interrupt, released in a thread too) > assuming I understand your example. I've had my share of semaphore > nightmares, and I'm not too excited to see a protection scheme (i.e. a > lock) which allows asynchronous usage like suspend blockers. > Why do you think this? The example in the documentation describe how we handle key events. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
