Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Florian Mickler]

On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:26:17 -0700
mark gross <640e9920@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:38:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > 2010/5/29 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > On Sat, 29 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > In place of in-kernel suspend blockers, there will be a new type of QoS
> > > >> > constraint -- call it QOS_EVENTUALLY.  It's a very weak constraint,
> > > >> > compatible with all cpuidle modes in which runnable threads are allowed
> > > >> > to run (which is all of them), but not compatible with suspend.
> > > >> >
> > > >> This sound just like another API rename. It will work, but given that
> > > >> suspend blockers was the name least objectionable last time around,
> > > >> I'm not sure what this would solve.
> > > >
> > > > It's not just a rename.  By changing this into a QoS constraint, we
> > > > make it more generally useful.  Instead of standing on its own, it
> > > > becomes part of the PM-QOS framework.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > We cannot use the existing pm-qos framework. It is not safe to call
> > > from atomic context.
> > 
> > We've just merged a patch that fixed that if I'm not mistaken.  Mark, did your
> > PM QoS update fix that?
> >
> 
> I'm pretty sure it can be called in atomic context, and if its not I'm
> sure we can fix that.  It can be called in atomic context.  I don't
> think it was ever a problem to call it in atomic context.  The problem it
> had was that crappy list of string compares.  Thats been fixed.
> 
> --mgross
>  

Well, the register call uses kzalloc. Apart from that I
think we're good. 

The outstanding list traversals can be fixed also. (see below)

Cheers,
Flo