<<On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:07:26 -0700, Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hmm, this has me thinking again about suspend/resume. In the current > context, can we expect a suspend veto from some function to actually > DTRT? (ie. drivers that have been suspended get a resume call). That's how I originally implemented it, but I'm not sure whether that has been maintained or not. > Or should we make two passes over the suspend method? One with " > intention to suspend at this level", the second to actually perform the > suspension once the first has been accepted? I think this is a good idea, and better than my implementation. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Brooks Davis
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... David Scheidt
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Mike Smith
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Josef Karthauser
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress report Mike Smith
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Mike Smith
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress repor... Garrett Wollman
- Re: ACPI project progress report Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: ACPI project progress report Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: ACPI project progress report Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress report Andrew Reilly
- Re: ACPI project progress report Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress report Mitsuru IWASAKI
- Re: ACPI project progress report Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: ACPI project progress report Warner Losh
- Re: ACPI project progress report Warner Losh
- RE: ACPI project progress report Koster, K.J.