On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:..and points to commit 1a38416cea8ac801ae8f261074721f35317613dc which in turn talks about http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5651 Howerver, it seems that bugzilla entry may just be bogus. It talks about "it appears that some firmware in the future may depend on that sequence for correction operation" Len, Shaohua, what are the real issues here? It would indeed be nice if we could just take CPU's down early (while everything is working), and run the whole suspend code with just one CPU, rather than having to worry about the ordering between CPU and device takedown. That said, at least with STR, the situation is: 1) suspend_console 2) device_suspend(PMSG_SUSPEND) (== ->suspend) 3) disable_nonboot_cpus() 4) device_power_down(PMSG_SUSPEND) (== ->suspend_late) 5) pm_ops->enter() 6) device_power_up() (== ->resume_early) 7) enable_nonboot_cpus() 8) pm_finish() 9) device_resume() (== ->resume 10) resume_console So if we agree that things like timers etc should *never* be suspended by the early suspend, and *always* use "suspend_late/resume_early", then at least STR should be ok. And I think that's a damn reasonable thing to agree on: timers (and anything else that CPU shutdown/bringup could *possibly* care about) should be considered core enough that they had better be on the suspend_late/resume_early list. Thomas, Rafael, can you verify that at least STR is ok in this respect? Linus -
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Paul Jackson | Re: cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #11210] libata badness |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
