On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote: > > - Would this fix the "bug"?? > > - and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address? > > - or are the requirements on user-space too onerous? > > In theory wakeup events can also happen after wait_for_blockers() has returned > 0 and I guess we should rollback the suspend in such cases. > I naively assumed this was already the case, but on a slightly closer look at the code it seems not. Presumably there is some point deep in the suspend code, probably after the call to sysdev_suspend, where interrupts are disabled and we are about to actually suspend. At that point a simple "is a roll-back required" test could abort the suspend. Then any driver that handles wake-up events, if it gets and event that (would normally cause a wakeup) PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE and PM_POST_SUSPEND, could set the "roll-back is required" flag. ?? NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
