Hi! > > > Or maybe arch_suspend_disable_irqs() ... there are PM > > > operations that don't involve system suspend states. > > > > Yeah, probably better and I'm fine with that, but the crowd who screamed > > when I noted that CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND had nothing to do with suspend > > states might be confused... It should be obvious that this isn't called > > for suspend to disk. > > Yeah, but SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is also a misnomer. It's more of a Well, that's the way it is. "suspend" == s2ram, standby, swsusp, swsusp+S4 in kernel context. > system checkpoint/restore framework. And even userspace makes > that distinction clear, calling it "Hibernate" not "Suspend". Gnome deciding to confuse their users is _their_ problem. > I feel a Kconfig patch coming on ... ;) I do not think confusion from a change is worth the benefit. 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
