lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6] kexec jump: in sync with hibernation implementation
From
Date
On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 11:22 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Add device_pm_lock() and device_pm_unlock() in kernel_kexec() to be
> > in sync with current hibernation implementation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
> >
> > ---
> > kernel/kexec.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/kexec.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kexec.c
> > @@ -1457,6 +1457,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
> > error = disable_nonboot_cpus();
> > if (error)
> > goto Resume_devices;
> > + device_pm_lock();
> > local_irq_disable();
> > /* At this point, device_suspend() has been called,
> > * but *not* device_power_down(). We *must*
> > @@ -1485,6 +1486,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
> > device_power_up(PMSG_RESTORE);
> > Enable_irqs:
> > local_irq_enable();
> > + device_pm_unlock();
> > enable_nonboot_cpus();
> > Resume_devices:
> > device_resume(PMSG_RESTORE);
> >
>
> Would it be possible to create common function for hibernation and
> kexec? Keeping complex stuff like this in sync is ugly.

Yes, it is ugly. But it is a little difficult to do that. Hibernation
one is more complex than this one.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-07 13:53    [W:0.046 / U:18.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site