On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 11:22 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Add device_pm_lock() and device_pm_unlock() in kernel_kexec() to be > > in sync with current hibernation implementation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang at intel.com> > > > > --- > > kernel/kexec.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > --- a/kernel/kexec.c > > +++ b/kernel/kexec.c > > @@ -1457,6 +1457,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void) > > error = disable_nonboot_cpus(); > > if (error) > > goto Resume_devices; > > + device_pm_lock(); > > local_irq_disable(); > > /* At this point, device_suspend() has been called, > > * but *not* device_power_down(). We *must* > > @@ -1485,6 +1486,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void) > > device_power_up(PMSG_RESTORE); > > Enable_irqs: > > local_irq_enable(); > > + device_pm_unlock(); > > enable_nonboot_cpus(); > > Resume_devices: > > device_resume(PMSG_RESTORE); > > > > Would it be possible to create common function for hibernation and > kexec? Keeping complex stuff like this in sync is ugly. Yes, it is ugly. But it is a little difficult to do that. Hibernation one is more complex than this one. Best Regards, Huang Ying
