Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:31:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:31:44 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:24330 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:31:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:38:18 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Pavel Machek cc: Alan Cox , , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: swsusp: don't eat ide disks In-Reply-To: <20021103225656.GR28704@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 994 Lines: 26 On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Is that really the right way to prepare disks for suspend? It probably is, although I suspect it should just be a default action, and drivers can choose to implement their own "suspend()" functionality if they want to. > I sleep all devices by telling driverfs to sleep them. Should I tell > all block devices, then tell driverfs? Seems hacky to me. Or should > idedisk_suspend generate request for itself, then pass it through > queues? I would strongly encourage letting the device hierarchy suspend() (now called sysfs, not driverfs) call be the _only_ call the disk controller ever gets. Having two different suspend mechanisms is just too confusing for words, and there's no point. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/