[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:0.226 / U:5.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site