From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: invoke suspend notifications after console switch Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:07:45 +0100 Message-ID: <200801231607.46112.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1197853799.4885.7.camel@johannes.berg> <1199970876.3861.66.camel@johannes.berg> <20080111182042.GC4016@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080111182042.GC4016@ucw.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: Len Brown , Johannes Berg , linux-pm List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 11 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2008-01-10 14:14:36, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 02:09 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > A subsequent patch will enable apm-emulation notification for suspends > > > triggered in any way by using the suspend notifications. This causes > > > the system to lock up between X being needed to switch away from the > > > VT and X already waiting for resume in the apm ioctl. > > > > > > This patch moves the console switch (if enabled) before the suspend > > > notification (and after the resume notification) to avoid this issue. > > > > I don't see this in the suspend git tree yet, anything wrong with it? > > Its pretty intrusive I'd say. And it is wrong; we'd prefer userspace > to know what we are doing; if they are told we are suspending, > userspace may be able to do something more clever than long console > switch. > > I'd prefer this not to go into mainline. Well, in uswsusp we do the console switch before the suspend notifiers (although from the user land). Rafael