[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201205122347.08176.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 23:47:08 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Bojan Smojver <bojan@...ursive.com>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: In kernel hibernation, suspend to both
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:40 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > + error = suspend_devices_and_enter(PM_SUSPEND_MEM);
> >
> >
> > I can imagine running into a host of problems here, since the suspend
> > sequence is not carried out fully, from the beginning.
> >
> > For example, this will skip sending out the PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE and the
> > PM_POST_SUSPEND notifiers. Worse, we actually send out the
> > PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE
> > and PM_POST_HIBERNATION notifiers and then do a suspend instead,
> > underneath!
> >
> > (Similar cases for the rest of the notifiers sent during suspend vs
> > hibernation).
> >
> > Don't we need to handle such things properly, in order to make
> > suspend-to-both
> > work reliably?
>
> Honest answer - I have absolutely no idea. I've seen the code of
> suspend-utils (i.e. user mode stuff) and it seems to me that it does
> exactly this. Could be wrong of course, just like many times before.
>
> Rafael?
Sorry, that has fallen out of my radar somehow.
Srivatsa is right, we should generally pay attention to those details.
I think we should generally use a different "prepare" notification for the
save-image-and-suspend case.
Thanks,
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