Ok. Now that I've actually done some work toward getting it to work with
Suspend2, I'll give a more cogent response to Christoph's approach.
I believe it can work, but the algorithm in freeze() is a bit of a
concern.
Checking whether the todo list is empty is fine while we're the only
user, but
Ok. Now that I've actually done some work toward getting it to work with
Suspend2, I'll give a more cogent response to Christoph's approach.
I believe it can work, but the algorithm in freeze() is a bit of a
concern.
Checking whether the todo list is empty is fine while we're the only
user, but
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
> >
> > On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
>
> On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
> > end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes.
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result -
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
> end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
> looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
> maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
Regards,
Nigel
drivers/acpi/osl.c |
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
Regards,
Nigel
drivers/acpi/osl.c |
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
Hi.
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 05:42, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> > This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
> > refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
> > whether they need to be or not.
>
> A
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
> refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
> whether they need to be or not.
A few comments..
> Signed-off by: Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi!
> > > +struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> > > +void *data,
> > > +const char namefmt[], ...)
> > > +{
> > > + char result[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> > > +
> > > + va_list args;
> > > + va_start(args, namefmt);
> > >
* Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> > + void *data,
> > + const char namefmt[], ...)
> > +{
> > + char result[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> > +
> > + va_list args;
> > +
Hi!
> This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
> refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
> whether they need to be or not.
>
> While this doesn't appear to have caused any problems with swsusp (ie
> Pavel's version) to date, this is no
Hi!
This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
whether they need to be or not.
While this doesn't appear to have caused any problems with swsusp (ie
Pavel's version) to date, this is no
* Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
+ void *data,
+ const char namefmt[], ...)
+{
+ char result[TASK_COMM_LEN];
+
+ va_list args;
+ va_start(args,
Hi!
+struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
+void *data,
+const char namefmt[], ...)
+{
+ char result[TASK_COMM_LEN];
+
+ va_list args;
+ va_start(args, namefmt);
+ vsnprintf(result,
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
whether they need to be or not.
A few comments..
Signed-off by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi.
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 05:42, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
This patch implements freezer support for workqueues. The current
refrigerator implementation makes all workqueues NOFREEZE, regardless of
whether they need to be or not.
A few
22 matches
Mail list logo
