[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [suspend/resume] Re: userspace notification from module
    On Monday 04 January 2010, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
    > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Monday 04 January 2010, Bartłomiej Zimoń wrote:
    > >> And what do You think about sending extra signals to processes?
    > >
    > > I don't see a problem with this in principle, although I don't think signals
    > > are very suitable for this particular purpose, because you need two-way
    > > communication between the power manager and the processes it's going to
    > > notify (because it has to wait for the processes to finish their preparations
    > > and to tell it that they are ready).
    > Again, just to abandon some thoughts... do you really need that "two-way
    > communication"? I mean if the kernel delivers that specific signal to
    > the process/task_struct [do_signal():handle_signal()] it has to save the
    > original execution context that will later on be restored after the
    > non-default signal handling function returns. This is our ACK /
    > notification for the successful return of the programs "suspend
    > handler". The kernel module (if such exists) could be notified about
    > that for instance by a simple notifier hook within kernelspace. I mean
    > if I see this right, the "two-way" is just for the ACK isn't it?

    _If_ the kernel sends the signals, which is not I think should be done.

    Please keep that in the user space. Really.

    I don't see _any_ good reason for putting such things into the kernel.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-04 20:47    [W:0.023 / U:3.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site