From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262250AbVHCLvc (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:51:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262231AbVHCLtN (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:49:13 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:25262 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262229AbVHCLrg (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:47:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Calling suspend() in halt/restart/shutdown -> not a good idea From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Pavel Machek Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel list In-Reply-To: <20050802144516.GC2465@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <1122908972.18835.153.camel@gaston> <20050802095312.GA1442@elf.ucw.cz> <20050802144516.GC2465@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:43:27 +0200 Message-Id: <1123069408.30257.35.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 16:45 +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. > > > > Then the practical question is: do we suspend the disk by > > calling device_suspend() for every device. Or do we modify > > the ->shutdown() method for the disk. > > The additional data in pm_message_t are usefull, and sharing code > between suspend-to-ram and suspend-to-disk is usefull => option #1... No. Ben.