Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > > so I'd say a
> > > > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > > > sleep.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll go along with that.  If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM 
> > > > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem 
> > > > is.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that makes sense. You are right.
> > 
> > Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
> > point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?
> 
> IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error
> the PM core must not wake its children.

I'm agreeing here, but one of the previous Alan's comments suggests he has a
differing opinion.  Alan?

I'm considering to make the PM core skip the resuming of the children of
devices that failed to resume and skip calling ->complete() for that devices
and their children.

Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux