From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Hibernation: Introduce system_entering_hibernation Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:48:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20090119214804.GC6194@nowhere> References: <20081104062734.GA4420@havoc.gtf.org> <200901192054.55536.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090119212428.GB6194@nowhere> <200901192235.23677.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:2911 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754467AbZASVsK (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:48:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901192235.23677.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Jeff Garzik , Frans Pop , tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:35:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 19 January 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:54:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > Introduce boolean function system_entering_hibernation() returning > > > 'true' during the last phase of hibernation, in which devices are > > > being put into low power states and the sleep state (for example, > > > ACPI S4) is finally entered. > > > > > > Some device drivers need such a function to check if the system is > > > in the final phase of hibernation. In particular, some SATA drivers > > > are going to use it for blacklisting systems in which the disks > > > should not be spun down during the last phase of hibernation (the > > > BIOS will do that anyway). > > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Why not using the power event notifier? > > I'm not sure what you mean exactly, care to elaborate? Sorry, I just thought about using the pm_notifier to listen on the suspend/resume events to check the current hibernation state. > Anyway, however, this is a pretty old patch series and I'm not very much > interested in reworking it once again. If you think it can be made better, > please go on. :-) It was just a suggestion, or more likely a question for curiosity, not really a criticism since I didn't follow the discussions about these patches and the problem they solve :-) Thanks. > Thanks, > Rafael