![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi. On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:44, Todd Poynor wrote: > The patch hooks into the power subsystem prior to freezing processes and > after unfreezing processes, so I don't think it's a concern (unless > something is using the power subsystem rather oddly). This patch sends > a single notification of system suspend and a single notification of > system resume, in case there's any confusion with the individual device > state change notifiers also recently discussed. It's been run > successfully on one ACPI system and one non-ACPI system. Great. > > In my mind, this approach is simpler and makes more sense: userspace > > should worry about userspace actions related to suspending before calling > > kernelspace. Kernel space should then only worry about saving and > > restoring driver states and should be transparent to user space. ... > > Agreed, with the minor reservations listed in a previous email (suspend > initiated by drivers must coordinate ad-hoc with userspace, etc.). You're thinking ACPI drivers initiating a suspend? They would do it through acpid, wouldn't they? At least that's the glue I use to get my sleep button to initiate a suspend. I would assume thermal events would/should work the same. > I'll let anybody who cares more deeply about this speak up now, > otherwise this isn't a battle I'll be fighting on behalf of others any > more. Thanks -- Todd :> I wasn't meaning to make it a battle! Nigel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||