From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: do not use pm_ops (was: Re: suspend2 merge (was: Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 00:16:48 +0200 Message-ID: <200705060016.49119.rjw@sisk.pl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Alan Stern Cc: Nigel Cunningham , Pekka Enberg , Pavel Machek , Linux-pm mailing list , Johannes Berg List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, 5 May 2007 23:43, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 5 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I'm also pointing out that the policy choice decided by the contents of > > > /sys/power/disk comes into play during steps 6-7 above, but not at all in > > > steps 1-5. Hence any associated software structures should explicitly be > > > connected only with steps 6 and 7. > > > > At present, this policy choice does affect the earlier steps too. > > Isn't this then another aspect of hibernation needing to be fixed? Or is > there some genuine reason I'm not aware of that the choice of shutdown > method should affect those steps? Well, I think it should be fixed, but I'm afraid that'll take a *lot* of time. Greetings, Rafael