On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:57:05PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This new SYSTEM_SUSPEND state is declared above and only assigned here > > to system_state without being tested anywhere. AFAICT, the only test > > you're doing is system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING and that works without > > defining a new SYSTEM_SUSPEND state. > > > > So are you sure you really need it? > > If the approach is workable, I will rename SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK as > SYSTEM_SUSPEND since SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK is not used now. This still doesn't change the fact that SYSTEM_SUSPEND or SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK is unused. IOW, both states are unused. So why introduce a new state instead of simply test != SYSTEM_RUNNING? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
