On 16/01/2015 at 11:23:32 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote : > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > There is no point in calling suspend/resume for unused > > clocksources. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> > > --- > > kernel/time/clocksource.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c > > index 920a4da58eb0..baea4e42ae90 100644 > > --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c > > +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c > > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ void clocksource_suspend(void) > > struct clocksource *cs; > > > > list_for_each_entry_reverse(cs, &clocksource_list, list) > > - if (cs->suspend) > > + if (cs->suspend && (cs->flags & CLOCK_SOURCE_USED)) > > cs->suspend(cs); > > This might be dangerous. If the clocksource has no enable/disable > callbacks, but suspend/resume, then you might leave it enabled across > suspend. >
Isn't that already the case? Right now, if you call clocksource_suspend, it doesn't matter whether the clocksource has an enable or not, it will be suspended. Maybe I'm mistaken but my patch doesn't seem to change that behaviour. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
