On (21/06/04 11:03), Marc Zyngier wrote: [..] > > Well on the other hand PM-callbacks are harmless on those archs, they > > won't overload the __weak function. > > I don't care much for the callbacks. But struct kvm is bloated enough, > and I'd be happy not to have this structure embedded in it if I can > avoid it. Got it. > > > How about passing the state to the notifier callback? I'd expect it to > > > be useful to do something on resume too. > > > > For different states we can have different kvm_arch functions instead. > > kvm_arch_pm_notifier() can be renamed to kvm_arch_suspend_notifier(), > > so that we don't need to have `switch (state)` in every arch-code. Then > > for resume/post resume states we can have kvm_arch_resume_notifier() > > arch functions. > > I'd rather we keep an arch API that is similar to the one the rest of > the kernel has, instead of a flurry of small helpers that need to grow > each time someone adds a new PM state. A switch() in the arch-specific > implementation is absolutely fine. OK.
