[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910312252.39446.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:52:39 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jose Marino <braket@...mail.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from 2.6.31.1 to 2.6.31.2 - Dell Inspiron 600m
On Saturday 31 October 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > The patch is appended, please have a look.
>
> Looks sane to me. It does the actual real socket ops early, and does the
> crazy pcmcia resume late.
>
> And I like how you abstracted out that dev->socket thing in
> pcmcia_socket_dev_run().
>
> The only thing that looks odd is how you do "socket_start_resume()" in the
> "late_resume" path too - that has already been done by the early_resume,
> and as far as I can see you're now initializing the socket twice.
>
> Is there a reason for that? Or am I misreading the patch (I didn't
> actually apply it, I just read the patch itself).
Yes, there is, because socket_early_resume() only does it in
the (skt->state & SOCKET_PRESENT) case. If that bit is not set, the
initialization is entirely postponed.
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