On 10/13/2010 12:14 PM, James Cameron wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:47:07AM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> On 10/13/2010 12:29 AM, James Cameron wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 05:27:27PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: >>>> For 0.84 we can do what powerd offers, creating a file based on the pid >>>> in /var/run/powerd-inhibit-suspend/ (those are removed by powerd when it >>>> goes into suspend the next time). >>> >>> If I understand correctly, these are only removed if the process with >>> the pid no longer exists. We can rely on /var/run being empty on boot, >>> since it is a tmpfs. >>> >> >> Right, so in the case of an activity that inhibit suspend because it is >> shared you have to close the activity in order to get out of that state. >> There is currently no way to 'un-share' an activity. > > That appears to be a Sugar design feature. > >> So, in order for powerd to kick in the activity has to be closed and >> therefore it will remove the file. > > powerd will not idle suspend while that file and the matching process is > present on the system. If either are not present, powerd may idle > suspend subject to other data. > >> Or do I oversee something why we can not rely on my assumption? > > I don't understand this question, sorry. > > My reply was specifically aimed at your statement that the files "are > removed by powerd when it goes into suspend the next time".
Ok, my point was that I do not have to unlink the files in Sugar, since powerd takes care of that. I guess we both have the same understanding of what powerd does just that we describe it differently. No need to discuss here further from my side. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel