On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, MyungJoo Ham wrote: > 2011/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, MyungJoo Ham wrote: > [] > >> -static int suspend_enter(suspend_state_t state) > >> +static int suspend_enter(suspend_state_t state, bool *wakeup_pending) > > > > You don't need to use the wakeup_pending argument at all. I think you > > shouldn't use it even, because in theory there may be a wakeup event after > > you've called pm_wakeup_pending() in suspend_enter() and in that case > > you should break the loop too. > > In the case where: > - at the first instance of suspend_enter, pm_wakeup_pending() returns false. > - after suspend_ops->enter(state), the pm_wakeup_pending() "wants" to > return true. > - however, suspend_again forces to loop again. > - then, at the second instance of suspend_enter, pm_wakeup_pending() > returns true. > - the suspend_again's loop breaks. > > Although it did not break the loop at the first while, it breaks > without calling suspend_ops->enter again anyway. > > [] > > > > So I would simply call pm_wakeup_pending() here again. > > > > Besides, if we simply call pm_wakeup_pending() again at there, the > loop will NOT break with pm_wakeup_pending() is true at the first call > inside of suspend_enter(). The function pm_wakeup_pending() clears out > the pending wakeup at each call; Ah, that's correct, sorry. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
