2010/4/23 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> 2010/4/23 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, [UTF-8] Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> ... >> >> +Calling suspend_block when the suspend blocker is active or suspend_unblock when >> >> +it is not active has no effect. This allows drivers to update their state and >> >> +call suspend suspend_block or suspend_unblock based on the result. >> > >> > But suspend_block() and suspend_unblock() don't nest. You should >> > mention this. >> > >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this? I think the first sentence >> dictates nesting is not supported. > > That fact is implicit from the first sentence. Mentioning it > _explicitly_ will help people to understand more easily. You don't > have to add much; a parenthetical remark would be enough: > > Calling suspend_block when the suspend blocker is active or > suspend_unblock when it is not active has no effect (i.e., > these functions don't nest). This allows drivers to ... > OK. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
