[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910312310.24180.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:10:24 +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:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Ahh, ok. And what's the reason for that? It seems like the
>
> skt->socket = dead_socket;
> skt->ops->init(skt);
> skt->ops->set_socket(skt, &skt->socket);
>
> thing should always be safe, whether there is something present or not.. ?
It should, but I'm not sure given the reported behavior so far.
I guess I'll prepare another patch that does this unconditionally in the
early phase and let's see how that works.
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