Re: reboot vs poweroff (was: Linux 2.6.13)

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com>]

Hi.

On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 01:15, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:32, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >> Meelis Roos wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > It's OK then - I'm not using any suspend and I had a problem that my
> >> > machine powered down instead of reboot. The patch that went into 2.6.13
> >> > after rc7 fixed it for me. So the current tree is OK for me and if it's
> >> > OK for you too after suspend2 changes then this case can probably be
> >> > closed.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> I'm still having problems with this patch. Both swsusp and swsusp2 are
> >> affected. Perhaps the fix Nigel did needs to be done to swsusp aswell?
> >
> > Yes, it does need modifying. I'll leave it to Pavel to do that though as
> > he's more familiar with the intricacies of that code than I am.
> 
> Are suspend and suspend2 not calling kernel_power_off()?

They are/weren't calling pm_ops->prepare if we're using poweroff or
reboot rather than entering S3 or S4.

> I am not certain about that code path but I worked hard in the lead
> up to 2.6.13 to get everyone on the same page so we did not have
> strange reboot issues on one code path and not on another.
> 
> It is possible that the code path in suspend is so strange I did not
> recognize it.  How do you initiate a S4 power off?
> 
> I can understand suspend2 having problems as it isn't merged but suspend
> is merged isn't it?

You're fine. It's just that we were both working around the problem
before, and don't need to now.

Regards,

Nigel

> Hmm.  Looking at that bug report it specifies 2.6.11.  Does this
> problem really happen in 2.6.13?
> 
> Eric
-- 
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider the interdependencies.
Calculate the probabilities.