Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 22:03 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Here's a different example. A process is waiting for a keypress, but
>> because it's badly written it's also drawing to the screen at 60 frames
>> per second and preventing the system from every going to idle. How do
>> you quiesce the system while still ensuring that the keypress will be
>> delivered to the application?
>
> To me it's somewhat of a negative for suspend blockers. Since to solve
> the problem you give above you would have to use a suspend blocker in an
> asynchronous way (locked in an interrupt, released in a thread too)
> assuming I understand your example. I've had my share of semaphore
> nightmares, and I'm not too excited to see a protection scheme (i.e. a
> lock) which allows asynchronous usage like suspend blockers.
>

Why do you think this? The example in the documentation describe how
we handle key events.


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