From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: question on resume() Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:40:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <200701310940.26040.oliver@neukum.name> References: <200701291206.39637.oneukum@suse.de> <200701302332.26063.rjw@sisk.pl> <200701310933.29443.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200701310933.29443.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Disposition: inline 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: pm list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 09:33 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Generally, you are safe if your driver only calls wake_up() from a proc= ess > > context, but not from .resume() or .suspend() routines (or from an > > unfreezeable kernel thread). > = > Ah, sorry, I've just realized I was wrong. Processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPT= IBLE > cannot be frozen! So, the above only applies to wake_up_interruptible(). So the kernel will wait for tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to finish IO before it calls suspend()? I am confused. Regards Oliver