Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 8)

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

 



> Please have a look at this thread:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/21/322
> (in short, the reporter sees APM suspend breakage under stress, occuring
> because APM uses our suspending of devices without the freezer).
> 
> It mostly appears to work without the freezer, but that's bacuse no one
> actually does things that might break it.  I don't think we can rely on users
> being so kind to us forever. :-)

As far as I'm concerned, it's yet another case of the freezer papering
over a problem rather than fixing it properly.

If we're going to introduce new callbacks, we should have the right
semantic from day 1 -and- fix those problems, rather than going to the
same old recursive nonsensical arguments and do things to paper over
problems.

Ben.


_______________________________________________
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