On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:51 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:47:27 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 15:46 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > >> +To create a suspend blocker from user space, open the suspend_blocker
> > >> special
> > >> +device file:
> > >> +
> > >> + fd = open("/dev/suspend_blocker", O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
> > >> +
> > >> +then optionally call:
> > >> +
> > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_SET_NAME(strlen(name)), name);
> > >> +
> > >> +To activate the suspend blocker call:
> > >> +
> > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_BLOCK);
> > >> +
> > >> +To deactivate it call:
> > >> +
> > >> + ioctl(fd, SUSPEND_BLOCKER_IOCTL_UNBLOCK);
> > >> +
> > >> +To destroy the suspend blocker, close the device:
> > >> +
> > >> + close(fd);
> > >
> > > Urgh, please let the open() be BLOCK, the close() be UNBLOCK, and keep
> > > the SET_NAME thing if you really care.
> > >
> >
> > That would be very inefficient.
> >
>
> Also I think it is intended to enforce named suspend blockers. (For
> debugging/accounting purposes).
I don't think the code as proposed mandates you SET_NAME, and I didn't
propose killing that off, you can still SET_NAME after you open() and
acquire the thing.
Anyway, the whole point is moot since its simply not needed at all.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
