Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Solving suspend-level confusion | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:25:55 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:14, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > If you want to tell me how I > > could tell it to quiesce without spin down, I'll happily do that. > > Very easy... with the current code, just use state 4 for the round > of suspend callbacks, ide-disk will then avoid spinning down.
Hmm. That's what I was doing and do do for the remainder of the devices. Oh well. I'll give it a try again. What would 3 do? (There was a stage when all three implementations used 3; I've just played sheep in changing to 4).
It occurs to me that I'm going to need to extend the partial tree handling anyway. When I get this working, I'm going to want to resume only the storage devices, and haven't added code for that yet.
Regards,
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/
| |