[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PM: Implement autosleep and "wake locks"
2012/2/14 Rafael J. Wysocki <>:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
>> ...
>> but the wake-source timeout feature has some bugs or incompatible apis. An
>> init api would also be useful for embedding wake-sources in other data
>> structures without adding another memory allocation. Your patch to
>> move the spinlock init to wakeup_source_add still require the struct
>> to be zero initialized and the name set manually.
> That should be easy to fix.  What about the appended patch?

That works, but I still have to call more than one function before I
can use the wakeup-source (wakeup_source_init and wakeup_source_add)
and more than one function before I can free it (__pm_relax,
wakeup_source_remove and wakeup_source_drop). Is there any reason to
keep these separate?

Also, not copying the name when the caller provides the memory for the
wakeup-source would be a closer match to the wakelock api. Most of our
wakelocks pass a string constant as the name, and making a copy of
that string is not useful. wake_lock_init is also safe to call from
atomic context, but I don't know if anyone relies on this.

Arve Hjønnevåg
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: 2012-02-15 07:01    [W:0.113 / U:3.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site