Hi!
> As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call
> pm_ops->finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be
> called before pm_ops->finish()
> (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html).
> For consistency, it seems reasonable to call disable_nonboot_cpus() after
> device_suspend().
>
> This way the suspend code will remain symmetrical with respect to the resume
> code and it may allow us to speed up things in the future by suspending and
> resuming devices and/or saving the suspend image in many threads.
...
> The following series of patches reorders the suspend and resume code so that
> nonboot CPUs are disabled after devices have been suspended and enabled before
> the devices are resumed. It also causes pm_ops->finish() to be called after
> enable_nonboot_cpus() wherever necessary.
Series looks okay to me... but it will need _long_ testing in
-mm. (Consider this ACK).
> The first patch changes the ordering of the suspend-to-RAM code and is
> untested, because my boxes continue refusing to resume from RAM for other
> reasons. If anyone can, please do me a favour and test it.
I did a bit of testing, and it seems to still work, both s2ram and
swsusp. (uswsusp untested).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Suspend-devel mailing list
Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
