From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level =?iso-8859-1?q?suspend=09and_hibernation_callbacks?= (rev. 2)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:41:48 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012)
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
       ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
       Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0803251030220.4838-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> <200803252048.43792.oliver@neukum.org>
In-Reply-To: <200803252048.43792.oliver@neukum.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200803252141.49049.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 935
Lines: 25

On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. M?rz 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > so I'd say a
> > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > sleep.
> > 
> > I'll go along with that. ?If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM 
> > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem 
> > is.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. You are right.

Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?

If you think it does, that behavior should be clearly documented (I didn't
think about that before).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/