Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH]: In kernel hibernation, suspend to both | | From | Bojan Smojver <> | | Date | Sun, 13 May 2012 11:37:09 +1000 |
| |
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 09, 2012, Bojan Smojver wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:40 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> > > + error = suspend_devices_and_enter(PM_SUSPEND_MEM); >> > >> > >> > I can imagine running into a host of problems here, since the >suspend >> > sequence is not carried out fully, from the beginning. >> > >> > For example, this will skip sending out the PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE and >the >> > PM_POST_SUSPEND notifiers. Worse, we actually send out the >> > PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE >> > and PM_POST_HIBERNATION notifiers and then do a suspend instead, >> > underneath! >> > >> > (Similar cases for the rest of the notifiers sent during suspend vs >> > hibernation). >> > >> > Don't we need to handle such things properly, in order to make >> > suspend-to-both >> > work reliably? >> >> Honest answer - I have absolutely no idea. I've seen the code of >> suspend-utils (i.e. user mode stuff) and it seems to me that it does >> exactly this. Could be wrong of course, just like many times before. >> >> Rafael? > >Sorry, that has fallen out of my radar somehow. > >Srivatsa is right, we should generally pay attention to those details. > >I think we should generally use a different "prepare" notification for >the >save-image-and-suspend case. > >Thanks, >Rafael
OK, I will try to rework then, if that is the case.
What I don't understand is this: should the hibernation fail for some reason, we would get the same hibernation code unwind that failure, right? So, a suspend after the image write will be just one long "failure", after which hibernation code has to unwind again. No?
-- Bojan
|  |