lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Solving suspend-level confusion
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.107 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site