Hi,
On Friday, 4 May 2007 14:08, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Crazy idea... could we kill hibernate_ops-like struct, and just create
> > > a device for ACPI, using its suspend()/resume()/whatever callbacks to
> > > do the ACPI magic?
> >
> > Doesn't that have the ordering problem again? You
Hi!
> > Crazy idea... could we kill hibernate_ops-like struct, and just create
> > a device for ACPI, using its suspend()/resume()/whatever callbacks to
> > do the ACPI magic?
>
> Doesn't that have the ordering problem again? You must ensure that this
> sysdev is suspended as the last one, and th
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 00:48 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Crazy idea... could we kill hibernate_ops-like struct, and just create
> a device for ACPI, using its suspend()/resume()/whatever callbacks to
> do the ACPI magic?
Doesn't that have the ordering problem again? You must ensure that this
sysd
Hi,
On Friday, 4 May 2007 00:48, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Crazy idea... could we kill hibernate_ops-like struct, and just create
> a device for ACPI, using its suspend()/resume()/whatever callbacks to
> do the ACPI magic?
Hmm, I didn't think about that. It seems to be viable at first sight
Hi!
Crazy idea... could we kill hibernate_ops-like struct, and just create
a device for ACPI, using its suspend()/resume()/whatever callbacks to
do the ACPI magic?
> Okay. Since we're trying to separate the hibernation code from the
> suspend code anyway, we can use the opportunity to introduce
On Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:13, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > +extern inline int hibernate(void) { return -ENOSYS; }
>
> and I don't think that will compile :)
It will, but this is a mistake. It should be 'static', not 'extern'. Will
f
On Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:12, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > extern void swsusp_unset_page_free(struct page *);
> > extern unsigned long get_safe_page(gfp_t gfp_mask);
>
> > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops);
>
> >
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +extern inline int hibernate(void) { return -ENOSYS; }
and I don't think that will compile :)
(the extern doesn't seem to be consistent right now anyway. maybe just
kill them all?)
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> extern void swsusp_unset_page_free(struct page *);
> extern unsigned long get_safe_page(gfp_t gfp_mask);
> +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops);
> +extern int hibernate(void);
You could add an extern to hibernatio
Hi.
Sorry for my quietness. Looks pretty straightforward to me :)
Nigel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:11, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2007-05-03 11:46:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:41, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
>
On Thu 2007-05-03 11:46:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:41, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
> > > +{
> > > + if (ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && op
On Thursday, 3 May 2007 11:45, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Well, BUG_ON() is extremely user-unfriendly, and it'd trigger even if the
> > user
> > actually didn't intend to suspend at all.
>
> Well, hibernation_set_ops is invoked whenev
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 11:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, BUG_ON() is extremely user-unfriendly, and it'd trigger even if the user
> actually didn't intend to suspend at all.
Well, hibernation_set_ops is invoked whenever the user loads his ACPI
module with S4 possible, and typically hav
On Thursday, 3 May 2007 10:41, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
> > +{
> > + if (ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish)) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "Wrong definition
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +void hibernation_set_ops(struct hibernation_ops *ops)
> +{
> + if (ops && !(ops->prepare && ops->enter && ops->finish)) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "Wrong definition of hibernation operations! "
> + "Using
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Separate the hibernation (aka suspend to disk code) from the other suspend code.
In particular:
* remove the definition related to hibernation (aka suspend to disk) from
include/linux/pm.h
* introduce struct hibern
Hi,
[Added linux-acpi to the CC list, should be there from the start]
On Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:11, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Rafael,
>
> > Concluding, it seems to me that the "restore" code path is correct, but the
> > "hibernate" code path is not and should be reworked. Also, it seems th
18 matches
Mail list logo
