Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756654AbaDPU5p (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:57:45 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:47190 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756582AbaDPU5n (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:57:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:57:18 +0100 From: One Thousand Gnomes To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Sebastian Capella , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ezequiel Garcia Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL Message-ID: <20140416215718.7f58efd8@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140416204119.GJ24070@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1395348795-8554-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <1395348795-8554-2-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <20140320212336.GA17368@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <20140320213502.795a5d3c@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> <20140415205453.GX24070@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140415211832.GA32213@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <20140416204119.GJ24070@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all > the architectures. Alternatively, we could just accept that > machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not > crash) in generic code. What would the right behaviour be while(1); isn't really nice behaviour on a modern device -- 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/