On April 25, 2016 7:53 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 18.04.16 at 16:00, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c
> > @@ -45,19 +45,31 @@ void do_suspend_lowlevel(void);
> >
> > static int device_power_down(void)
> > {
> > + int err;
> > +
> > console_suspend();
> >
> > time_suspend();
> >
> > i8259A_suspend();
> >
> > - ioapic_suspend();
> > + err = iommu_suspend();
> > + if ( err )
> > + goto iommu_suspend_error;
> >
> > iommu_suspend();
>
> A little more care please - this is definitely not what you meant.
>
Very sorry for this..:(
> > + iommu_suspend_error:
> > + ioapic_resume();
> > + i8259A_resume();
> > + time_resume();
> > + console_resume();
> > +
> > + return err;
>
> Instead of mostly repeating what device_power_up() does I wonder whether
> it wouldn't be better to re-use that function for the error path here. Either
> by
> suitably making information available to device_power_up() to skip the call to
> lapic_resume() or by making lapic_resume() itself recognize it got called
> without
> lapic_suspend() having got called first.
>
To be honest, now this modification is much more readable to me, however I will
reconsider your suggestion.
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
