On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 03:08:33PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [ . . . ] > > having this conversation? :) It'd be good to have some feedback from > > Google as to whether this satisfies their functional requirements. > > That is "this"? The merged code? If so, no it does not satisfy our > requirements. The in kernel api, while offering similar functionality > to the wakelock interface, does not use any handles which makes it > impossible to get reasonable stats (You don't know which pm_stay_awake > request pm_relax is reverting). The proposed in user-space interface > of calling into every process that receives wakeup events before every > suspend call is also not compatible with existing apps. I should have asked this earlier... What exactly are the apps' compatibility constraints? Source-level APIs? Byte-code class-library invocations? C/C++ dynamic linking? C/C++ static linking (in other words, syscall)? Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
