On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm.  It doesn't seem to be possible to create two different suspend blockers
>> > using the same file handle.  So, what exactly is a process supposed to do to
>> > use two suspend blockers at the same time?
>>
>> Open the file twice, thereby obtaining two file handles.
>
> Well, that's what I thought.
>
> I must admit I'm not really comfortable with this interface.  IMO it would
> be better if _open() created the suspend blocker giving it a name based on
> the name of the process that called it.  Something like
> "<process name>_<timestamp>" might work at first sight.
>
> Alternatively, "<process_name><number>", where <number> is 0 for the first
> suspend blocker created by the given process, 1 for the second one etc., also
> seems to be doable.

I think it is important to let user-space specify the name. If a
process uses multiple suspend blockers, it is impossible to tell what
each one is used for if they are automatically named.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/