linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/