Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

From: Mike Snitzer
Date: Mon May 17 2010 - 15:01:26 EST

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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at