[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803252141.49049.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:41:48 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)
On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > so I'd say a
> > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > sleep.
> >
> > I'll go along with that. If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM
> > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem
> > is.
>
> Yes, that makes sense. You are right.
Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?
If you think it does, that behavior should be clearly documented (I didn't
think about that before).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists