Re: [PATCH 1/2] suspend: Move NVS save/restore code to generic suspend functionality

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

 



On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 23:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: 
> > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > Saving platform non-volatile state may be required for suspend to RAM as
> > > well as hibernation. Move it to more generic code.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > You made a mistake here.
> > 
> > Also, why are you resending the Matthews patches?  I think Len has seen them
> > already.
> Yea, a copypaste.
> 
> (I was told that if one submits modified patch, it adds his
> Signed-off-by.)
> 
> I rebased these on top of 
> ACPI / EC / PM: Fix race between EC transactions and system suspend'
> 
> To be honest, I just want to get some feedback on this.
> This was major issue that kept me from using otherwise prefect suspend
> to ram.

I think this is a change we should try, but there is a chance it will break
some systems.

> Thus I am thinking that maybe ready to apply patch will have more
> chances to be reviewed....

Not really (as far as I'm concerned at least). :-)

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