Hi! > As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call > pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be > called before pm_ops->finish() > (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html). > For consistency, it seems reasonable to call disable_nonboot_cpus() after > device_suspend(). > > This way the suspend code will remain symmetrical with respect to the resume > code and it may allow us to speed up things in the future by suspending and > resuming devices and/or saving the suspend image in many threads. ... > The following series of patches reorders the suspend and resume code so that > nonboot CPUs are disabled after devices have been suspended and enabled before > the devices are resumed. It also causes pm_ops->finish() to be called after > enable_nonboot_cpus() wherever necessary. Series looks okay to me... but it will need _long_ testing in -mm. (Consider this ACK). > The first patch changes the ordering of the suspend-to-RAM code and is > untested, because my boxes continue refusing to resume from RAM for other > reasons. If anyone can, please do me a favour and test it. I did a bit of testing, and it seems to still work, both s2ram and swsusp. (uswsusp untested). Pavel -- (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-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
