Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:18:25 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Suspend 2 merge: 21/51: Refrigerator upgrade. |
| |
Hi!
> > > > > > Silently doing nothing when user asked for sync is not nice, > > > > > > either. BUG() is better solution than that. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we should BUG because the user presses Sys-Rq S while > > > > > suspending. I'll make it BUG_ON() and make the Sys_Rq printk & ignore > > > > > when suspending. Sound reasonable? > > > > > > > > Yes, that's better. ... only that it means just another hook somewhere > > > > :-(. > > > > > > :<. But we're only talking two or three lines. Let's keep it in > > > perspective. > > > > I think even three lines are bad. It means that swsusp is no longer > > self-contained subsystem, but that it has its hooks all over the > > place. And those hooks need to be maintained, too. > > Yes, but suspending can't practically be a self contained system. We can > try to convince ourselves that we're making it self contained by hiding > behind the driver model, but in reality, the driver model is just a nice > name for our sticky little fingers in all the other drivers, ensuring > they do the right thing when we want to go to sleep. Hooks in other code > is just the equivalent, but without the nice name. Perhaps I should > invent one. How about the "quiescing subsystem"? :>
Actually, "quiescing subsystem" with defined (and documented!) interface might be an improvement ;-). Pavel
-- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - 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/
| |