Re: Calling suspend() in halt/restart/shutdown -> not a good idea

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > I'd like to get rid of shutdown callback. Having two copies of code
> > (one in callback, one in suspend) is ugly.
> 
> Well, it's obviously not a good time for this. First, suspend and
> shutdown don't necessarily do the same thing, then it just doesn't work
> in practice. So either do it right completely or not at all, but 2.6.13
> isn't the place for an half-assed hack that looks like a solution to
> you.

Well, if that "hack" broke something, it was broken
w.r.t. suspend-to-disk already, but... it caused enough problems that
it is not good idea for 2.6.13, agreed.

> I do agree that there are enough similarities between the suspend and
> shutdown process that we could use the same callback, but then, please,
> at least with a different argument and with drivers beeing fixed to
> handle it. Most drivers should probably just "ignore" shutdown
> anyway.

Yes, we should have different argument, but code should be really
similar in suspend-to-disk-powerdown and normal powerdown, so I'd like
to use same callback. This is post-2.6.13 material (but I'd like patch
to stay in -mm, so that drivers keep getting tested).

> BTW. I suppose we still have the same constant for PMSG_FREEZE and
> PMSG_SUSPEND ? That could have been fixed ages ago and is more important
> imho....

That one is fixed in -mm already. But I guess it will not make it into
2.6.13.
								Pavel
-- 
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
-
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/