Re: [PATCH] Combined APM patch

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@mail.com>]

Just browsing the diff between my patch and Stephen's, I have
a couple of questions.

< static int			suspends_pending; /* = 0 */
---
> static int			suspends_pending;

Is it not good practice to note when the code _assumes_ zero-
initialization?  I have seen comments like these elsewhere in
the kernel sources.

< 	static int use_apm_idle; /* = 0 */
< 	static unsigned int last_jiffies; /* = 0 */
< 	static unsigned int last_stime; /* = 0 */
---
> 	static int use_apm_idle = 0;
> 	static unsigned int last_jiffies = 0;
> 	static unsigned int last_stime = 0;

Are static variables defined within functions not initialized
to zero at load time, as global static variables are?

< 			ignore_sys_suspend = 0;
---
> 			waiting_for_resume = 0;

Don't you think "ignore_sys_suspend" is a name more consistent
with the other "ignore_yadda_yadda" variable names?  Minor issue.

Everything else looks good to me.

On Sun, 2002-01-06 at 23:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> This is my version of the combined APM patches;
> 
> 	Change notification order so that user mode is notified
> 		before drivers of impending suspends.
> 	Move the idling back into the idle loop.
> 	A couple of small tidy ups.
> 
> See header comments for attributions.
> 
> This works for me (including as a module).
> 
> Please test and let me know - it seems to lower my power requirements
> by about 10% on my Thinkpad (over stock 2.4.17).
> 
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/2.4.17-APM.1.diff

The kernel compiles fine with your patch; I'll test over the
next few days.

Thanks
Thomas