On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > So you say. Have you actually ever done anything to make debugging easier? > > I've implemented suspend/resume for a whole range of machiens where > everything goes down and all I have to debug on resume is ... sending > commands to a chip to blink a LED. So yes, I have. That's not what I asked. I didn't ask whether you had debugged suspend/resume. I asked whether you had tried to make it easier. > None of the problems I've had were ever related to something that would > be in save_state. Ok, I've had very different things happen. Here's a _fact_: - we currently walk the device chain to suspend different devices - one device returns an error - we've now suspended half the machine, done major things, and we need to undo it - the thing fails. Are you seriously claiming this has never happened to you? It sure has happened to me. And YES, THIS WOULD BE IMPROVED BY MY SCHEME. Instead of getting a machine that has suspended partly, and may be effectively dead and unable to even tell the user that it failed half-way through, it would not have suspended anything at all, and just say "Sorry, I can't do that". Adn yes, this is a _direct_ result of THE BROKEN CONVENTION OF DOING EVERYTHING IN SUSPEND()! But yeah, you go on and ignore it. Because the current scheme is obviously all right. Gahh. Linus
