On Monday, 29 October 2007 22:30, Alan Stern wrote: > Rafael: > > How does this patch look? Any reason not to have the resume notifiers? Yes. The userland interface already uses PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE and PM_POST_HIBERNATION for restore too, so if anything, we should call these from software_resume() either. As a rule of thumb, if you're going to change kernel/power/disk.c, have a look at kernel/power/user.c and see if analogous changes are needed in there. > After all, drivers need to know when an image is about to be restored > just as much as they need to know when one is about to be created. > > Assuming this is okay, to whom should I submit it? Well, it isn't, but as far as the patch flow is concerned, please post suspend patches to linux-pm and I'll forward them to Len Brown. Next, they will go through the suspend branch of the ACPI tree. This doesn't apply to patches that change drivers/base/power and should go to Greg, but I can forward them to him too. > There will be a couple of follow-up patches, one adding the icebox and one > converting the USB threads to use the icebox instead of the freezer. This > sort of cross-subsystem stuff is difficult to coordinate unless one person > handles everything. The overall idea is to collect patches in the suspend branch of the ACPI tree, unless that is against some higher priority rules. Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
