On Út 29-03-05 16:33:04, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:12:39 +0200, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I am leaning towards calling disable_usermodehelper (not writtent yet) > > > after swsusp completes snapshotting memory. We really don't care about > > > hotplug events in this case and this will allow keeping "normal" > > > resume in drivers as is. What do you think? > > > > That would certianly do the trick. > > > > [Or perhaps in_suspend() is slightly nicer solution? People wanted it > > for other stuff (sanity checking, like BUG_ON(in_suspend())), too....] > > > > We might want having both... Hmm... in_suspend - is it only for swsusp > (in_swsusp) or for suspend-to-ram as well? For suspend to ram we might > need slightly different rules, I don't know. A separate call will > allow more fine-grained control and will explicitely tell reader what > is happening. We currently freeze processes for suspend-to-ram, too. I guess that disable_usermodehelper is probably better and that in_suspend() should only be used for sanity checks... go with disable_usermodehelper and sorry for the noise. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
