Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754964Ab0GANcT (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:32:19 -0400 Received: from ksp.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.206]:56845 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754027Ab0GANcR (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:32:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:32:08 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Alan Stern , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Neil Brown , Matthew Garrett , mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com>, Arve Hj??nnev??g , Dmitry Torokhov , Florian Mickler , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost Message-ID: <20100701133208.GA1285@ucw.cz> References: <201006261514.13491.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201006261514.13491.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1525 Lines: 36 Hi! > @@ -114,3 +114,17 @@ Description: > if this file contains "1", which is the default. It may be > disabled by writing "0" to this file, in which case all devices > will be suspended and resumed synchronously. > + > +What: /sys/power/wakeup_count > +Date: July 2010 > +Contact: Rafael J. Wysocki > +Description: > + The /sys/power/wakeup_count file allows user space to avoid > + losing wakeup events when transitioning the system into a sleep > + state. Reading from it returns the current number of registered > + wakeup events and it blocks if some wakeup events are being > + processed at the time the file is read from. Writing to it > + will only succeed if the current number of wakeup events is > + equal to the written value and, if successful, will make the > + kernel abort a subsequent transition to a sleep state if any > + wakeup events are reported after the write has returned. I assume that second suspend always succeeds? I can't say I quite like the way two sysfs files interact with each other, but it is certainly better then wakelocks... Maybe we should create sys_suspend()? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/