On Tuesday 24 April 2007, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > This is a very straightforward point. A function that's > > > > called on non-S2RAM paths shouldn't be named as if it's > > > > only for S2RAM. > > > > > > And the function that's called for s2ram+standby should not be named > > > as if it's also for swsusp... > > > > > > > Ergo, those two functions are misnamed. End of story. > > > > > > ...which is not only misnamed, it is also actively confusing. (And > > > someone _will_ ask me to call that function from swsusp, too. > > > > > > ...maybe we could solve it with a big fat comment? > > > > So how about we don't call them s2ram which is confusing since s2ram is > > only one suspend state we support but call them suspend as David > > originally proposed and add a comment that since suspend-to-disk isn't a > > true suspend state, they are not called there? > > calling them ..._suspend_... and explaining in comment is probably ok. Yah, I'm fine with that too. > > Has anybody figured out if (and if yes, where) we should add them to > > some header file? > > include/linux/pm.h is probably the right place. > > Feel free to add my acked-by: and send it to akpm. > 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
