On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:27 +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > This is the 4th revision of the patch. > > > + * struct pm_noirq_ops - device PM callbacks executed with interrupts disabled > > > + * > > > + * The following callbacks included in 'struct pm_noirq_ops' are executed with > > > + * the nonboot CPUs switched off and with interrupts disabled on the only > > > + * functional CPU. They also are executed with the PM core list of devices > > > + * locked, so they must NOT unregister any devices. > > > + * > > > + * @suspend_noirq: Complete the operations of ->suspend() by carrying out any > > > + * actions required for suspending the device that need interrupts to be > > > + * disabled > > IMHO, no need to add _noirq in both struct and struct members. > > pm_noirq->suspend_noirq does not look good... > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore. I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate. > BTW. I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the discussion on that > thread yet, been busy with other things, I'll try to go back to it today > or tomorrow. OK 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
