Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759427AbYCYU4e (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752511AbYCYU40 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:26 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:34742 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751952AbYCYU4Z convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:25 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Oliver Neukum 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 21:56:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Alan Stern , ACPI Devel Maling List , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Alexey Starikovskiy , Johannes Berg , LKML References: <200803252141.49049.rjw@sisk.pl> <200803252149.37552.oliver@neukum.org> In-Reply-To: <200803252149.37552.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803252156.12185.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1405 Lines: 34 On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. M?rz 2008 21:41:48 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > 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? > > IMO you must always keep the ordering invariant. If a parent returns an error > the PM core must not wake its children. I'm agreeing here, but one of the previous Alan's comments suggests he has a differing opinion. Alan? I'm considering to make the PM core skip the resuming of the children of devices that failed to resume and skip calling ->complete() for that devices and their children. 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/