[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1102081143470.2100-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:46:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"SUZUKI, Kazuhiro" <kaz@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/2] Fix hangup after creating checkpoint on
Xen.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> The problem is that currently we have:
>
> dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_SUSPEND);
>
> dpm_suspend_noirq(PMSG_SUSPEND);
>
> sysdev_suspend(PMSG_SUSPEND);
> /* suspend hypercall */
> sysdev_resume();
>
> dpm_resume_noirq(PMSG_RESUME);
>
> dpm_resume_end(PMSG_RESUME);
>
> However the suspend hypercall can return a value indicating that the
> suspend didn't actually happen (e.g. was cancelled). This is used e.g.
> when checkpointing guests, because in that case you want the original
> guest to continue. When the suspend didn't happen the drivers need to
> recover differently from if it did.
That is odd, and it is quite different from the intended design of the
PM core. Drivers are supposed to put their devices into a known
suspended state; then afterwards they put the devices back into an
operational state. What happens while the devices are in the suspended
state isn't supposed to matter -- the system transition can fail, but
devices get treated exactly the same way as if it succeeded.
Why do your drivers need to recover differently based on the success of
the hypercall?
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