From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] s2ram: add arch irq disable/enable hooks Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:06:58 -0700 Message-ID: <200704211006.58857.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <1176980411.6141.83.camel@johannes.berg> <200704210955.11351.david-b@pacbell.net> <1177174861.5941.26.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1177174861.5941.26.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, Andrew Morton , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 21 April 2007, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 09:55 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > Or maybe arch_suspend_disable_irqs() ... there are PM > > operations that don't involve system suspend states. > > Yeah, probably better and I'm fine with that, but the crowd who screamed > when I noted that CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND had nothing to do with suspend > states might be confused... It should be obvious that this isn't called > for suspend to disk. Yeah, but SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is also a misnomer. It's more of a system checkpoint/restore framework. And even userspace makes that distinction clear, calling it "Hibernate" not "Suspend". I feel a Kconfig patch coming on ... ;) - Dave