From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:37:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20090211213751.GB605@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20090211044736.GB9980@bulgaria.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Brian Swetland , ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed 2009-02-11 09:58:23, 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? > > delay_sleep or delaysleep? block_sleep or blocksleep? Any of the > above with "sleep" replaced by "suspend"? Actually "sleep_veto" sounded best. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html