From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable
	/sys/power/state interface
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 16:40:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0902081628340.22400-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
References: <20090208210401.GE6369@elf.ucw.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090208210401.GE6369@elf.ucw.cz>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
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 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?

Alan Stern