[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1012122237360.4379-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:40:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] PM: Use a different list of devices for each
stage of device suspend
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> Instead of keeping all devices in the same list during system suspend
> and resume, regardless of what suspend-resume callbacks have been
> executed for them already, use separate lists of devices that have
> had their ->prepare(), ->suspend() and ->suspend_noirq() callbacks
> executed. This will allow us to simplify the core device suspend and
> resume routines.
Okay in principle. But there's one mistake...
> @@ -699,8 +693,8 @@ static void dpm_complete(pm_message_t st
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&list);
> mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> transition_started = false;
> - while (!list_empty(&dpm_list)) {
> - struct device *dev = to_device(dpm_list.prev);
> + while (!list_empty(&dpm_prepared_list)) {
> + struct device *dev = to_device(dpm_prepared_list.prev);
>
> get_device(dev);
> if (dev->power.status > DPM_ON) {
The parts about getting rid of "list" and putting dev back onto
dpm_list got left out.
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