From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262228AbVHCLmp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:42:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262229AbVHCLmo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:42:44 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:14766 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262228AbVHCLmk (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:42:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Calling suspend() in halt/restart/shutdown -> not a good idea From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Pavel Machek Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel list , ebiederm@xmission.com In-Reply-To: <20050802095312.GA1442@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1122908972.18835.153.camel@gaston> <20050802095312.GA1442@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:38:28 +0200 Message-Id: <1123069109.30257.23.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:53 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ > > Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get > emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive > only limited number of emergency stops, that is not a good idea. No, that is bogus. We have shutdown() already for that and it used to be implemented at least by IDE. You are just blindly "dropping" the device_suspend() call in there without thinking. There is a lot of differences between suspend and shutdown, you can't "just do that". In addition to the number of drivers with broken suspend of course, causing many boxes to not shutdown anymore (and not only PPCs) Andrew, please back that off before 2.6.13. I'll try to send a patch if you want later today if I find some time with a kernel source at hand. Ben.