Re: [PATCH] s2ram: add arch irq disable/enable hooks

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Tuesday 24 April 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > This is a very straightforward point.  A function that's
> > > > called on non-S2RAM paths shouldn't be named as if it's
> > > > only for S2RAM.
> > > 
> > > And the function that's called for s2ram+standby should not be named
> > > as if it's also for swsusp...
> > > 
> > > > Ergo, those two functions are misnamed.  End of story.
> > > 
> > > ...which is not only misnamed, it is also actively confusing. (And
> > > someone _will_ ask me to call that function from swsusp, too.
> > > 
> > > ...maybe we could solve it with a big fat comment?
> > 
> > So how about we don't call them s2ram which is confusing since s2ram is
> > only one suspend state we support but call them suspend as David
> > originally proposed and add a comment that since suspend-to-disk isn't a
> > true suspend state, they are not called there?
> 
> calling them ..._suspend_... and explaining in comment is probably ok.

Yah, I'm fine with that too.



> > Has anybody figured out if (and if yes, where) we should add them to
> > some header file?
> 
> include/linux/pm.h is probably the right place.
> 
> Feel free to add my acked-by: and send it to akpm.
> 									Pavel
> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
>