Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm] PM: Change ordering of suspend and resume code

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

Hi,

On Wednesday, 20 December 2006 00:30, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> > pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
> > called before pm_ops->finish()
> > (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html).
> > For consistency, it seems reasonable to call disable_nonboot_cpus() after
> > device_suspend().
> > 
> > This way the suspend code will remain symmetrical with respect to the resume
> > code and it may allow us to speed up things in the future by suspending and
> > resuming devices and/or saving the suspend image in many threads.
> ...
> > The following series of patches reorders the suspend and resume code so that
> > nonboot CPUs are disabled after devices have been suspended and enabled before
> > the devices are resumed.  It also causes pm_ops->finish() to be called after
> > enable_nonboot_cpus() wherever necessary.
> 
> Series looks okay to me... but it will need _long_ testing in
> -mm. (Consider this ACK).

Thanks.

> > The first patch changes the ordering of the suspend-to-RAM code and is
> > untested, because my boxes continue refusing to resume from RAM for other
> > reasons.  If anyone can, please do me a favour and test it.
> 
> I did a bit of testing, and it seems to still work, both s2ram and
> swsusp. (uswsusp untested).

I've been testing uswsusp for some time and it doesn't seem to break (so far :-)).

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
		- Stephen King
-
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