[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1009021723460.1311-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Prevent waiting forever on asynchronous resume after
abort
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Colin Cross wrote:
> That would work, but I still don't see why it's better. With either
> of your changes, the power.completion variable is storing state, and
> not just used for notification. However, the exact meaning of that
> state is unclear, especially during the transition from an aborted
> suspend to resume, and the state is duplicating power.status. Setting
> it to complete in dpm_prepare is especially confusing, because at that
> point nothing is completed, it hasn't even been started.
The state being waited for varies from time to time and is only
partially related to power.status. Instead of using a completion I
suppose we could have used a new "transition_complete" variable
together with a waitqueue. Would you prefer that? It's effectively
the same thing as a completion, but without the nice packaging already
provided by the kernel.
Alan Stern
--
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