From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix console handling during suspend/resume Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:33:30 +1000 Message-ID: <1150940010.947.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060614103404.GC28536@elf.ucw.cz> <1150852207.12507.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200606211418.16236.david-b@pacbell.net> <1150938496.16303.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Brownell , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:24 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > = > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > = > > Linus, You are contradicting yourself a bit I think... On one mailed, > > you agreed that suspend() would happen in a "live" systems with no > > quiescing of subsystems and now you say drivers shouldn't bother > = > Right. > = > SUSPEND. > = > Not SNAPSHOT. > = > The real STR shouldn't actually need to quiesce anything. > = > But STD isn't suspend. And it damn well needs to quiesce things. > = > As long as you think of STD as suspend, you're never going to get = > _anywhere_. It's not. It has never been. And it never will be. Ok, ok... just read my other mail then and pls answer to my objection about save_state() vs. suspend() :) That is, my worry about the state actually changing between those 2 calls and restoring the wrong one, essentially, what is the precise definition of "state". Ben.