-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Trimarchi wrote: > Werner Almesberger wrote: >> Andy Green wrote: >> >>> They're not so scary if they properly default to not impacting suspend >>> and resume in the case it's not Android running. >>> >> >> Hmm, but do we (Linux) really want to have an "Android mode" for >> the kernel ? I very much doubt even Android would want this sort >> of dichotomy. >> >> >>> I could imagine it's >>> quite useful to be able to be sure some complex transaction or event is >>> protected against suspend / resume and atomic for it, since otherwise >>> it's kind of like FIQ just blasting in there when it feels like it. >>> >> >> It certainly is useful for applications to be able to veto suspend >> during critical activities. The question is just whether the kernel >> is the right place to implement mechanisms to keep applications out >> of each other's hair at such a high level. The suspend operation may >> be very low-down but the decisions that lead to it aren't. >> > I'm agreee with you, and I think that the right place is user space at the > end. >> In our (Openmoko) case, we have the framework that can take care of >> such things. I would expect Android to have some means to coordinate >> what its user space does as well. >> > Moving the lock support in the user space is the correct way, but It can be > done in next weeks, and maybe now having one config for all kernel, but > activate android with a bootup variable, instead a configuration option. > Moving the wakelock in user space is not difficult, they are > on a rbtree and can be with timeout or not, I just review the interaction > with console and framebuffer, because there are two other support > earlyconsolesuspend > and earlyfbsuspend if I remember. Werner can you wait such times for a > complete report?
Werner isn't waiting on this to do anything :-) Michael, if this wakelock stuff is just a local addition you made and not part of android, it's better we try to get rid of it. If Google are creating it though, maybe they have a larger plan and we need to deal with that. Can you clarify where the wakelock code came from? - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmOuvUACgkQOjLpvpq7dMpS5QCeLHC9WyUrmz2YFKbImbneYikI teYAmwfx45HJfdkJp5lnzeJnMoEVOlrL =wxz9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
