[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from to - Dell Inspiron 600m

    On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > If people don't object, I'll push it through the suspend-2.6 tree along
    > with a few other bug fixes.

    No objections, but a cleanup request:

    > +static int socket_early_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
    > +{
    > + if (skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND)
    > + socket_start_resume(skt);
    > +
    > + return 0;
    > +}
    > +
    > +static int socket_late_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
    > +{
    > + if (!(skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND))
    > + return 0;

    As far as I can tell, that "SOCKET_SUSPEND" test is totally pointless.
    That socket _is_ going to be suspended, and testing for it here just seems
    to confuse things.

    So I'd remove it from both early_resume and late_resume, and only keep it
    in the case of the legacy user-requested suspend/resume (do we even do
    that any more?).

    The SOCKET_SUSPEND flag itself is still relevant, of course, since the
    state change handling will test it (in order to avoid insert/remove
    handlign while we have the suspend flag set). It's just that the suspend
    code shouldn't _test_ it, since the suspend code is what sets it in the
    first place.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.021 / U:30.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site