On Thursday, 26 April 2007 20:40, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > * it surfaces kernel implementation details about pm_ops and thus makes > > > the whole thing very fragile > > > > Can you elaborate? > > Well it tells userspace about pm_ops->enter/prepare/finish etc. > Also, it seems that it needs a "release memory now" operation instead of > just releasing it when the fd is closed? Yes. That's because we want to be able to repeat creating the image without closing the fd in some situations. > > > * it has yet another interface (yuck) to determine whether to reboot, > > > shut down etc, doesn't use /sys/power/disk > > > > Yes. In fact it was meant as a replacement for /sys/power/disk at one point. > > Heh. > > > > * I generally had no idea wtf it is doing in some places > > > > I could have told you if you had asked. :-) > > I was offline ;) > > > Do we need hibernate_ops at all? There's only one user anyway and I'm not > > sure there will be more of them in the future. > > I'm pretty sure there won't be, but there's no way to do it cleanly > without pm_ops since even acpi doesn't do this all the time but only > when some set of conditions is true. Hence, it needs to be able to > determine the availability of the platform mode at run time rather than > build time (build time => we could use weak symbols, arch hooks, ...) Still, we could use a global var 'platform_hibernation' or something like this, I think. Then, we can do #define platform_hibernation 0 on the architectures that don't need it and make ACPI use it instead of this "dynamic linking". Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
