Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Solving suspend-level confusion | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:52:09 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:53, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > I've also done partial-tree support for suspend2 by making a new list > > (along side the active, off and off_irq lists) and simply moving devices > > I want to keep on (plus their parents) to this list prior to calling > > device_suspend. Works well for keeping alive the ide devices being used > > write the image. > > How so ? By not calling suspend for it at all ? That's broken, the > driver wants suspend to match the resume it will get when the image > is reloaded, that's the only way the driver can guarantee a sane state > saved in the suspend image.
Yes, I don't call suspend for it because I can be sure the drivers are idle (before beginning to write the image, freeze all process, flush all dirty buffers and suspend all other drivers, I then wait on my own I/O until it is flushed too). I know it's broken to do so, but it was a good work around for wearing out the thing by spinning it down and then immediately spinning it back up, and I wasn't sure what the right state to try to put it in is (sound familiar?!). If you want to tell me how I could tell it to quiesce without spin down, I'll happily do that.
The sooner these issues get sorted, the better.
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/
| |