[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090614172022.GA22586@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:20:22 +0200
From: Andreas Mohr <andim2@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: andi@...as.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make e100 suspend handler support PCI cards lacking PM
capability
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday 14 June 2009, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Couple questions still:
> > - why do we call pci_wake_from_d3(...false) only!?
> > Wouldn't this break WoL after one iteration back and forth,
> > due to missing 'true' case?
>
> The 'true' case is the 'wake = true' one.
OK, so it wasn't an explicit pci_wake_from_d3(...true), but the
operations done there are the equivalent of it probably.
> > - why do we call netif_device_detach() _after_ doing hardware shutdown
> > of the network controller? I'd guess this can cause huge issues?
> > Someone told me he had rtnl lock issues upon S2D with e100
> > (very similar to my rtnl issues during aborted .suspend),
> > and that might possibly be the reason?
>
> I think you're right, but I'm not a network driver expert.
>
> Perhaps you can change the ordering and see if that fixes the rtnl issue
> (since you're able to reproduce it without my patch, that should be easy to
> verify).
I'll test this - later.
Thanks a lot,
Andreas Mohr
--
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