[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1106231421470.2033-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 7/8] PM / Domains: System-wide transitions support
for generic domains (v3)
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > It should say "system suspend" rather than "system sleep".
>
> It says "system sleep" to distinguish between the state of the system
> ("system sleep") and the operation leading to that state ("system suspend").
> That terminology is used all over the document, so I don't think it's a good
> idea to change it just for this specific paragraph.
>
> I agree that "suspend" should be used where it talks about starting, stopping
> etc.
>
> > Then to drive the point home, the following sentence chould say
> > something like this:
> >
> > If that is the case and none of the situations listed above takes place
> > (in particular, if the system is waking up from suspend and not from
> > hibernation), it may be more efficient to leave the devices that had
> > been suspended before the system suspend began in the suspended state.
>
> That's fine by me, except that I'd simply say "(in particular, if the system
> is not waking up from hibernation)".
Okay.
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