From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261574AbVGUBZW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:25:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261184AbVGUBZN (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:25:13 -0400 Received: from tron.kn.vutbr.cz ([147.229.191.152]:7180 "EHLO tron.kn.vutbr.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261195AbVGUBZJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:25:09 -0400 Message-ID: <42DEF96E.60103@stud.feec.vutbr.cz> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:25:02 +0200 From: Michal Schmidt User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050603) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Andreas Steinmetz , Pavel Machek , Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: amd64-agp vs. swsusp References: <42DD67D9.60201@stud.feec.vutbr.cz> <200507201115.08733.rjw@sisk.pl> <42DECB21.5020903@stud.feec.vutbr.cz> <200507210123.16537.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200507210123.16537.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "tron.kn.vutbr.cz", has tested this incoming email. See other headers to know if the email has beed identified as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. ____ Content analysis details: (-4.2 points, 6.0 required) ____ pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------- 0.7 FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS From: ends in numbers -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0001] ____ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, 21 of July 2005 00:07, Michal Schmidt wrote: >>I also tried putting a printk before restore_processor_state(), but I'm >>not sure if it is safe to use printk there. > > > Yes, it is, but you may be unable to see the message if the box reboots before > it can be displayed. OK, but then I also tried putting a 5s long busy wait there and the reset was not delayed. Therefore, the reset must be occurring before restore_processor_state(). Or is there a reason why for(i=0; i<5000; i++) udelay(1000); wouldn't work as expected? Michal