Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
quoted text
> On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > so I'd say a
> > > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > > sleep.
> > > 
> > > I'll go along with that.  If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM 
> > > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem 
> > > is.
> > 
> > Yes, that makes sense. You are right.
> 
> Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
> point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?

IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error
the PM core must not wake its children.

	Regards
		Oliver

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/