Hi!
> > I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
> > (one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
>
> Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First, suspend and
> shutdown don't necessarily do the same thing, then it just doesn't work
> in practice. So either do it
Hi!
> >>I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
> >>(one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
> >
> >Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First, suspend and
> >shutdown don't necessarily do the same thing, then it just doesn't
> >work
> >in practice. So eit
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew, please back that off before 2.6.13. I'll try to send a patch if
> you want later today if I find some time with a kernel source at hand.
Please do.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body o
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 12:53 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2005, at 07:40:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
> >> (one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
> >
> > Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First,
On Aug 3, 2005, at 07:40:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
(one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First, suspend and
shutdown don't necessarily do the same thing, then it just
> I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
> (one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First, suspend and
shutdown don't necessarily do the same thing, then it just doesn't work
in practice. So either do it right completel
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 12:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
> > good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting down are
> > quite different from suspend/resume, and current drivers have too many
> > bugs to m
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 08:40 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
> >
> > Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
> > emergency hard disk park during p
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 16:45 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > >> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
> > >
> > > Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
> > > emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive
> > > only
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 11:53 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
>
> Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
> emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive
> only limited number of
Hi!
> >> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
> >
> > Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
> > emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive
> > only limited number of emergency stops, that is not a good idea.
>
> The
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
>> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
>
> Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
> emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive
> only limited number of emergency stops
Hi!
> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
> good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting down are
> quite different from suspend/resume, and current drivers have too many
> bugs to make that safe. I keep getting all sort of reports of machines
Well
Hi!
> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_
Well, reason is that if you remove device_suspend() you'll get
emergency hard disk park during powerdown. As harddrives can survive
only limited number of emergency stops, that is not a good idea.
Hi!
> > > Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
> > > good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting down are
> > > quite different from suspend/resume, and current drivers have too many
> > > bugs to make that safe. I keep getting all sort of reports o
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 20:37 +0200, Marc Ballarin wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:09:31 +0200
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi !
> >
> > Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
> > good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:09:31 +0200
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
> good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting down are
> quite different from suspend/resume, and current drivers h
Hi !
Why are we calling driver suspend routines in these ? This is _not_ a
good idea ! On various machines, the mecanisms for shutting down are
quite different from suspend/resume, and current drivers have too many
bugs to make that safe. I keep getting all sort of reports of machines
not shutting
18 matches
Mail list logo
