[linux-pm] [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday 08 February 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they
> > would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I
> > believe something like that is neccessary.
> 
> krefs don't have name strings for keeping track of who has been 
> incrementing or decrementing their counters.  And it's true that krefs 
> are nearly undebuggable.  But somehow we've managed to struggle along 
> without adding names to krefs.  Why should wakelocks be any different?

Yeah, I don't really see why.

Thanks,
Rafael