On Monday, July 16, 2012, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Arve, Rafael, > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg <a...@android.com> wrote: > > When an epoll_event, that has the EPOLLWAKEUP flag set, is ready, a > > wakeup_source will be active to prevent suspend. This can be used to > > handle wakeup events from a driver that support poll, e.g. input, if > > that driver wakes up the waitqueue passed to epoll before allowing > > suspend. > > It's late it the -rc series,
Well, exactly. :-) > but it strikes me that CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP is > a poor name for the capability that governs the use of EPOLLWAKEUP. > While on the one hand some capabilities are overloaded > (https://lwn.net/Articles/486306/), on the other hand we should avoid > adding individual capabilities for each new API feature (otherwise > capabilities become administratively unwieldy). > > This capability is not really about "EPOLL". It's about the ability to > block system suspend. Therefore, IMO, a better name would be something > like: CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND. This name is better because there might be > some other API feature that is later added that also has the effect of > preventing system suspends, and we could reasonably govern that > feature with the same capability. > > Does that seem sensible to you? I can send a patch for the name change. I'm not sure what Arve thinks about that, but I'd be fine with that. Arve, what do you think? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/