2010/5/17 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > 2010/5/14 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: >> On Friday 14 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >>> This patch series adds a suspend-block api that provides the same >>> functionality as the android wakelock api. This version has some >>> changes from, or requested by, Rafael. The most notable changes are: >>> - DEFINE_SUSPEND_BLOCKER and suspend_blocker_register have been added >>> for statically allocated suspend blockers. >>> - suspend_blocker_destroy is now called suspend_blocker_unregister >>> - The user space mandatory _INIT ioctl has been replaced with an >>> optional _SET_NAME ioctl. >>> >>> I kept the ack and reviewed by tags on two of the patches even though >>> there were a few cosmetic changes. >> >> Thanks for the patches, I think they are in a pretty good shape now. >> >> That said, I'd like the changelogs to be a bit more descriptive, at least for >> patch [1/8]. I think it should explain (in a few words) what the purpose of >> the feature is and what problems it solves that generally a combination of >> runtime PM and cpuidle is not suitable for in your opinion. IOW, why you >> think we need that feature. >> > > How about: > > PM: Add opportunistic suspend support. > > Adds a suspend block api In the future I think it'd be ideal if you were to always use "suspend blocker" (rather than "suspend block"). This work has nothing to do with the block layer yet by the subject I thought it somehow did. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
