Hi! > > Frankly, I'm not sure. > > > > For practical purposes the BUG_ON() assertions will suffice, so I think you > > can keep the two handlers. I'd change the names, though, to something > > like quiesce() and activate(), for example. > > Sure. > > > [Hm, it feels more appropriate to define them for all platforms and make them > > call local_irq_save() on the platforms that don't need to do anything more.] > > Is there much point in that? It seems to make implementing new pm_ops a > bit more complex seeing that nobody but us seems to require such a thing > yet. And why do _you_ need it? Unfortunately I do not know what the decrementer is...? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
