From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark gross Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:47:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20090212184715.GA5290@linux.intel.com> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-2-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090205225158.GA19577@linux.intel.com> <20090210202507.GE1382@ucw.cz> <20090211044736.GB9980@bulgaria.corp.google.com> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090211044736.GB9980@bulgaria.corp.google.com> 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: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:47:36PM -0800, 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? nodoz (just kidding) names are always hard for me. What you are talking about is constraining entry to low power states. (mostly) > > Some people use "sleep vote" for a similar mechanism (though usually > you're voting against sleep, which makes it feel backwards to me). with what OS? --mgross