[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:0.058 / U:4.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site