From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pm_ops: add system quiesce/activate hooks Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:18:06 +0200 Message-ID: <200704140018.07367.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1175810054.3489.34.camel@johannes.berg> <20070413215241.GO28264@elf.ucw.cz> <1176501547.7052.130.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1176501547.7052.130.camel@johannes.berg> 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: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 13 April 2007 23:59, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 23:52 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > = > > Look again, this sequence is before taking system snapshot, and then > > we have to recover and save the snapshot, too. > = > I know. But that doesn't make us care. > = > As I explained previously, the decrementer exception is pending until it > is taken. It doesn't matter one bit whether it is pending during the > snapshot, but it does matter if we need the CPU to go to sleep later > because it won't when the exception is pending. Technically, they may be not needed by (u)swsusp, but since (u)swsusp alrea= dy uses pm_ops in the platform mode, it formally should use these new hooks in the platform mode too. Otherwise it won't make sense to use pm_ops in (u)swsusp at all, IMHO. Greetings, Rafael