From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: <200902090044.49034.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Alan Stern Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 08 February 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they > > would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I > > believe something like that is neccessary. > > krefs don't have name strings for keeping track of who has been > incrementing or decrementing their counters. And it's true that krefs > are nearly undebuggable. But somehow we've managed to struggle along > without adding names to krefs. Why should wakelocks be any different? Yeah, I don't really see why. Thanks, Rafael