From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: suspend.c vs driver-model.txt Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:57:30 +0200 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20020730185730.615@192.168.4.1> References: <20020730195655.GK12091@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20020730195655.GK12091-jyMamyUUXNJG4ohzP4jBZS1Fcj925eT/@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: Patrick Mochel , acpi-devel-pyega4qmqnRoyOMFzWx49A@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >All kernel services that can issue requests need kernel threads, >right? My approach is to take kernel threads one by one and make them >suspend-aware. It wouldn' be bad to do that too. I just "feel" it safer and better to define the driver semantics to be IO blocking. Some user processes still want explicit notification, as will do some kernel threads I beleive (example of user processes like this are those doing HW banging, like XFree, there, console switch is really only a workaround, but XFree is already equiped to deal with suspend requests from /dev/apm_bios). Ben. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31