Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:45:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:45:13 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:5643 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:44:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:44:07 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Alan Cox , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New Driver Model for 2.5 Message-ID: <20011023114407.B2639@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > /* Now tell them to stop I/O and save their state */ > > > device_suspend(3, SUSPEND_SAVE_STATE); > > > > I'd very much like this one to be two pass, with the second pass occuring > > after interrupts are disabled. There are some horrible cases to try and > > handle otherwise (like devices that like to jam the irq line high). > > I forgot to mention to disable interrupts after the SUSPEND_NOTIFY call. > The idea is to allocate all memory in the first pass, disable interrupts, > then save state. Would that work? Or, should some of the state saving take > place with interrupts enabled? That looks ugly, because you'd need to add DONT_SUSPEND_NOTIFY, called when SUSPEND_NOTIFY fails. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: 6453 dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. - 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/