From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: swsusp 'disk' fails in bk-current - intel_agp at fault? Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:33:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4243252D.6090206@suse.de> <4243D854.2010506@suse.de> <20050329181831.GB8125@elf.ucw.cz> <20050329192339.GE8125@elf.ucw.cz> <20050329205225.GF8125@elf.ucw.cz> <20050329211239.GG8125@elf.ucw.cz> Reply-To: dtor_core-yWtbtysYrB+LZ21kGMrzwg@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050329211239.GG8125-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Linux-pm mailing list , Vojtech Pavlik , Stefan Seyfried , kernel list , Andy Isaacson List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:12:39 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > I am leaning towards calling disable_usermodehelper (not writtent yet) > > after swsusp completes snapshotting memory. We really don't care about > > hotplug events in this case and this will allow keeping "normal" > > resume in drivers as is. What do you think? > > That would certianly do the trick. > > [Or perhaps in_suspend() is slightly nicer solution? People wanted it > for other stuff (sanity checking, like BUG_ON(in_suspend())), too....] > We might want having both... Hmm... in_suspend - is it only for swsusp (in_swsusp) or for suspend-to-ram as well? For suspend to ram we might need slightly different rules, I don't know. A separate call will allow more fine-grained control and will explicitely tell reader what is happening. I do not have a strong preference though. -- Dmitry