From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:45:46 +0100 Message-ID: <200902111645.46843.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: Brian Swetland Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, u.luckas@road.de, ncunningham@crca.org.au List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Brian Swetland wrote: > > > [Pavel Machek ] > > > > > > > > wake_lock never blocks. > > > > > > Wakelock is really bad name: it is not a lock and it does not protect > > > wake. I'd say we need better name here. > > > > I agree with you here -- I've had this discussion with Arve previously, > > but have been unable to offer a compelling alternative name. Anybody > > have a good idea? Well, even "sleep lock" would have been better. > delay_sleep or delaysleep? block_sleep or blocksleep? Any of the > above with "sleep" replaced by "suspend"? I also thought about "sleep stopper". It reflects what the feature does. :-) Thanks, Rafael