Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Paul E. McKenney]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/