From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] acpi: Use syscore instead of pm_power_off_prepare to prepare for poweroff Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:59:05 -0700 Message-ID: <543ADD89.1050702@roeck-us.net> References: <1413062057-11657-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <3090667.ydmQKSGePB@vostro.rjw.lan> <543AD7FA.5060706@roeck-us.net> <2189351.ETD7m2XsWr@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2189351.ETD7m2XsWr@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2014 01:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:35:22 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 10/12/2014 12:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 11, 2014 02:14:16 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> The syscore shutdown callback seems to be perfectly suited to prepare for system >>>> poweroff. Use it instead of pm_power_off_prepare. >>> >>> How much testing did that receive? >>> >> >> As I mentioned in patch 0/2, compile tested so far only. Before I start playing >> with my servers, I wanted to get some feedback if the idea is worth pursuing >> further or if I am missing something essential. > > Well, it makes sense in principle, but the ordering with respect to the other > syscore shutdown things and the migrate_to_reboot_cpu() may be a problem. > > I always get nervous when the ordering of ACPI-related code changes like > that and the reason is quite weak this time to be honest. > Ok, no problem; I'll drop it. Guenter