lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)
Date
On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > > so I'd say a
> > > > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > > > sleep.
> > > >
> > > > I'll go along with that.  If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM
> > > > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem
> > > > is.
> > >
> > > Yes, that makes sense. You are right.
> >
> > Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
> > point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?
>
> IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error
> the PM core must not wake its children.

I'm agreeing here, but one of the previous Alan's comments suggests he has a
differing opinion. Alan?

I'm considering to make the PM core skip the resuming of the children of
devices that failed to resume and skip calling ->complete() for that devices
and their children.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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: 2008-03-25 21:59    [W:0.060 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site