Hi. On Wednesday 26 April 2006 09:55, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 25 April 2006 3:18 pm, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > I saw the 2 suspends, 1 resume comment in another part of the thread, but > > don't believe a driver would be able to detect that 2 suspends and 1 > > resume call had been made - at least not without some non volatile ram. > > The extra suspend is just IMO a symptom of sloppiness, like a "here may be > bugs" sign. Not necessarily an issue in its own right. > > In fact if you count carefully, it's three suspends and one resume: one > suspend before calling swsusp_resume, one inside swsusp_resume -- replaced > by my patch -- and a correctly matched pair in the kernel being resumed.
That doesn't sound right. Let' see - where's this third one?
Real Effective
SUSPEND
Pre-copy suspend(freeze) suspend(freeze)
powerdown(freeze) powerdown(freeze)
Post-copy powerup
resume
Powerdown shutdown_prepare/kernel_power_off/...
RESUME
bios & kernel init
Pre-restore suspend(freeze)
powerdown(freeze)
Post-restore powerup powerup
resume resume
> Raising two points: (1) for those who think suspend is right, you can
> think of it as replacing one of the extra ones with
> kernel_restart_prepare(); and (2) not very much code interacts with that
> restart prep, that's a sane audit problem.
>
>
> Also, about non-volatile RAM. Not necessary ... the device hardware holds
> all the relevant state. The problem is that swsusp is now trashing it with
> those suspend calls before resuming the real kernel. On the plus side, we
> already have code being used to resolve the identical issue for kexec(),
> and all my patch does is to use it.
If devices really do get powered down, then they won't retain the state. If
they don't actually powerdown, then I see your point.
Regards,
Nigel
--
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
pgpLcrcAXG8T2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
