On Monday, 14 of April 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Please have a look at this thread: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/21/322 > > (in short, the reporter sees APM suspend breakage under stress, occuring > > because APM uses our suspending of devices without the freezer). > > > > It mostly appears to work without the freezer, but that's bacuse no one > > actually does things that might break it. I don't think we can rely on users > > being so kind to us forever. :-) > > As far as I'm concerned, it's yet another case of the freezer papering > over a problem rather than fixing it properly. Well, this is not a user's point of view. > If we're going to introduce new callbacks, we should have the right > semantic from day 1 -and- fix those problems, rather than going to the > same old recursive nonsensical arguments and do things to paper over > problems. Still, we're not supposed to break things, as far as the functionality is concerned, and that's important, because it means we _have_ _to_ make changes in steps. To be more precise, what you suggest (move ->prepare() before the freezer right now) means a patch with _functional_ changes (it's impossible to register new children of dev after ->prepare(dev) has run which can affect the user space in the window before ->prepare() and the freezer), whereas what I'd like to do is the (present) patch without functional changes. 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
