From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: swsusp regression [Was: 2.6.17-mm1] Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:11:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20060622211157.GA15669@kroah.com> References: <449AFFAD.2030601@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline 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: Alan Stern Cc: linux-pm@osdl.org, Jiri Slaby , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 05:09:43PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Jiri Slaby wrote: > = > > > ages. The "bogus requests" are attempts by the user to suspend a USB > > > device (by writing to /sys/devices/.../power/state) without first > > > suspending all its children and interfaces. > > > = > > > (This can't happen when doing a global suspend because the PM core = > > > iterates through the entire device tree. It matters only for "runtim= e" or = > > > "selective" suspend.) > > = > > But everything I did is: > > echo reboot > /sys/power/disk > > echo disk > /sys/power/state > > = > > No writing anywhere else. > = > You misunderstood. I meant that attempts to suspend a USB device without = > first suspending all its children and interfaces can't happen when doing = a = > global suspend. That's still true. > = > Your problem occurred because even though the PM core did _attempt_ to = > suspend the new children added by Greg's patch, it didn't _succeed_ = > because the patch did not provide suspend or resume methods. Which because they are virtual "devices" they do not need a suspend or resume method, so not having any is just fine. If we abort because of something like this, the core logic is quite broken... thanks, greg k-h