From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:42:24 -0700 Message-ID: <49C7F430.8060205@goop.org> References: <49C484B7.20100@goop.org> <200903231920.12991.rjw@sisk.pl> <49C7DDDC.2050103@goop.org> <200903232127.40683.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:38434 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751660AbZCWUma (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:42:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200903232127.40683.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "Brown, Len" , Xen-devel , the arch/x86 maintainers , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "Cihula, Joseph" Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hmm, in that case it may be more appropriate to modify > do_suspend_lowlevel(). Have you considered doing that? > do_suspend_lowlevel is in asm with 32 and 64-bit variants, so it is a little awkward to deal with. But, yes, I was thinking of adding a do_suspend() with this logic in it, which calls do_suspend_lowlevel() as appropriate. J