Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > > so I'd say a
> > > > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > > > sleep.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll go along with that.  If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM 
> > > > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem 
> > > > is.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that makes sense. You are right.
> > 
> > Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
> > point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?
> 
> IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error
> the PM core must not wake its children.

I'm agreeing here, but one of the previous Alan's comments suggests he has a
differing opinion.  Alan?

I'm considering to make the PM core skip the resuming of the children of
devices that failed to resume and skip calling ->complete() for that devices
and their children.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html