[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4840B35F.7080807@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 22:09:35 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH for [Bug 8952] tulip driver oops in tulip_interrupt when
hibernating with swsusp/suspend2
Grant Grundler wrote:
> Jeff,
> The following patch is seems to fix the tulip suspend/resume panic:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8952#c46
>
> My attempts at a cleaner patch failed and Pavel thinks this is OK.
> Since suspend/resume is getting an overhaul in 2.6.27 (per comment
> #49 by Rafael J. Wysocki), it makes sense to invest more time as
> part of that rework and apply the known fix to 2.6.26.
>
> hth,
> grant
>
> Original from: kernelbugs@....homeip.net
> Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c b/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
> index f9d13fa..088d3bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
> @@ -1729,12 +1729,15 @@ static int tulip_suspend (struct pci_dev *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> if (!dev)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (netif_running(dev))
> - tulip_down(dev);
> + if (!netif_running(dev))
> + goto save_state:
> +
> + tulip_down(dev);
how could this be tested if it doesn't even compile?
Oh well, seems sane, let's see...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists