[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Patch: linux-2.5.42/kernel/sys.c - warm reboot should not suspend devices
Patrick Mochel <> writes:

> > Mostly I want a comment from Patrick Mochel why he made the change,
> > and roughly what he was thinking. So I have a good idea about which
> > code I need to dig into and send patches to fix. If he makes a good
> > case for an independent shutdown, method I am fine with that, just
> > every driver in the kernel needs to change, and that is a heck of a
> > lot of work before 2.6. Otherwise we can go back to calling remove.
> The main problem is locking and refcounting on the device objects.
> ->remove() is removing objects from the device tree and freeing them. This
> is not good when we expect the list to remain intact while we iterate over
> it.
> This is fine when a device is unplugged or a module is removed, but
> completely unnecessary during a power transition. Nothing is going away;
> we're just turning everything off. And, we don't we don't have to mess
> with getting the list traversal right, since we can assume it's intact.

O.k. That is very good reason for making the change.

> In short, it's about the data structures, not the hardware. It is going to
> require modification to drivers, but the changes should be small and make
> the code cleaner. It can also happen gradually. There is going to be a lot
> of cleanup of drivers in the coming months as more things are converted to
> exploit the driver model, anyway.
> In general, I agree with the patch that you sent later in the thread. I'll
> apply it, at least for now.

My big concern is with getting the shutdown path setup in a manner
that works, and gets testing. When booting linux from linux with
sys_kexec a lot of my problems come back to some device driver not
getting shutdown.

Question, is there a method from the class shutdown code that we
can/should call, during reboot. I just have this memory that for
network interfaces simply downing the interface tends to put it in
a quiescent state. And I am wondering if that might be a general
thing we can take advantage of. Though if the class remove methods
modify the data structures I guess that is out.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.039 / U:11.216 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site