From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:47:29 +0200 Message-ID: <200704131347.30001.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <1176454756.7052.98.camel@johannes.berg> <1176455273.5764.74.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: <1176455273.5764.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 13 April 2007 11:07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > = > > The docs in the patch I posted should make it clear enough, but if > > somebody can come up with a better name for "activate" I'm all ears. > = > I personally quite like your original irq_off/irq_on :-) > = > But I won't put up a fight for it if others disagree.. Well, I didn't like them, because they should refer to the local CPU only (= the other ones are supposed to be disabled at that point). Also, since we are going to do some things apart from disabling the (local) IRQs in there, I thought some other names would be better. Still, if that's confusing, I'm = not going to fight either. :-) Greetings, Rafael