Hi, On Wednesday, 20 December 2006 00:30, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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). Thanks. > > 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). I've been testing uswsusp for some time and it doesn't seem to break (so far :-)). Greetings, Rafael -- If you don't have the time to read, you don't have the time or the tools to write. - Stephen King - 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
