On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > > > so I'd say a > > > > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during > > > > > sleep. > > > > > > > > I'll go along with that. If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM > > > > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem > > > > is. > > > > > > Yes, that makes sense. You are right. > > > > Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's > > point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example? > > IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error > the PM core must not wake its children. I'm agreeing here, but one of the previous Alan's comments suggests he has a differing opinion. Alan? I'm considering to make the PM core skip the resuming of the children of devices that failed to resume and skip calling ->complete() for that devices and their children. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
