[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fix up power managment in 2.6

    > I've been reviewing your code, see your mailbox. Unfortunately due to
    > you renaming functions and moving files around, it is very hard to review.

    I've tried to make each changeset do one conceptual item. And, each patch
    that I posted, besides obviously the cumulative one, represents one

    > [Attached is patch "not changing core functionality". How did you
    > expect me to verify that? And it was you who protested on killing 3
    > printks.]

    What is the problem with it? Why is it not better than what was there

    > And managed to call sleeping functions with interrupts disabled and
    > break x86-64 somewhere in the process.

    The first is unintentional and not something I see here. Will investigate

    Have you confirmed that x86-64 is broken, or are you simply trying to
    raise more accusations? If it is broken, please tell exactly what the
    problem is and I will fix it.

    > Hmm, and because you killed
    > BUG_ON(in_atomic()), you did not realize that you were breaking
    > that.

    That was in software_suspend() itself, which was completely bogus. For
    one, you should review how you're getting called and realize that neither
    places were atomic contexts. So, it was useless.

    Now, you did export software_suspend() for some unknown reason, and that
    is simply bogus. Why would a module call you?

    Finally, you BUG()'d when you could simply return an error. That's
    completely unfriendly to the user. Just return an error, like every other
    sane code path.

    > And I do not think you actually tested those "panic" codepaths
    > to make sure you are not corrupting data, right?

    panic() is not a valid replacement for sane error handling. Every single
    panic() in swsusp can be replaced by proper error handling. You should
    have done that a long time ago. Calling panic() is just lazy.

    > > I will also restore swsusp to whatever state you like - either -test1,
    > > -test3 or -test4 state, or keep it the way it currently is in my patches.
    > > But note that doing so will result in a large amount of duplicated code
    > > which you will be responsible for either merging or removing.
    > Good, please return it to -test3 state. If you can leave your split-up
    > patches on some public ftp site, that would be good; when dm is back
    > working so I can actually test it, I'll do some cherry-picking.

    They will remain at the URL I posted the other day. As will the patches
    to convert it back to the state you please. I will patch against the
    current tree and continue to work from there. Note that this involves the
    contents of kernel/swsusp.c only.

    And, the driver model is working fine. I don't know what you're
    complaining about now, but a sane bug report would be helpful. So would
    some patches -- you've been maintaining swsusp for two years now, and
    you've not help convert one driver to the new model (even before it



    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 13:48    [W:0.029 / U:87.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site