Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: add suspend pm-notifier

[Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>]

On (21/06/04 11:03), Marc Zyngier wrote:
[..]
> > Well on the other hand PM-callbacks are harmless on those archs, they
> > won't overload the __weak function.
> 
> I don't care much for the callbacks. But struct kvm is bloated enough,
> and I'd be happy not to have this structure embedded in it if I can
> avoid it.

Got it.

> > > How about passing the state to the notifier callback? I'd expect it to
> > > be useful to do something on resume too.
> > 
> > For different states we can have different kvm_arch functions instead.
> > kvm_arch_pm_notifier() can be renamed to kvm_arch_suspend_notifier(),
> > so that we don't need to have `switch (state)` in every arch-code. Then
> > for resume/post resume states we can have kvm_arch_resume_notifier()
> > arch functions.
> 
> I'd rather we keep an arch API that is similar to the one the rest of
> the kernel has, instead of a flurry of small helpers that need to grow
> each time someone adds a new PM state. A switch() in the arch-specific
> implementation is absolutely fine.

OK.