From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: Do not use pm_ops
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:18:58 +0200
Message-ID: <200705031218.59256.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <200705022213.35831.rjw@sisk.pl> <200705031146.03358.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070503101118.GJ12554@elf.ucw.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:52827 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752854AbXECKOi (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 3 May 2007 06:14:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20070503101118.GJ12554@elf.ucw.cz>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

On Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:11, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2007-05-03 11:46:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:41, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish)) {
> > > > +		printk(KERN_ERR "Wrong definition of hibernation operations! "
> > > > +			"Using defaults\n");
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	}
> > > 
> > > Why not BUG_ON here as I had before? I don't see much point in giving a
> > > runtime warning, and the docs clearly state that you must assign all
> > > three items. Oh, I see I had a bug before when ops was NULL, but you can
> > > still do
> > >   BUG_ON(ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish));
> > 
> > Well, BUG_ON() is extremely user-unfriendly, and it'd trigger even if the user
> > actually didn't intend to suspend at all.
> 
> WARN_ON()?

Sure, why not.

Greetings,
Rafael