Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi!

> There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling
> device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because
> the device suspend code was too immature.   With this latest
> piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing device_suspend(...)
> in kernel_power_off, kernel_halt, kernel_reboot, or kernel_kexec
> can never be appropriate.

Code is not ready now => it can never be fixed? Thats quite a strange
conclusion to make.
				Pavel
-- 
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms         

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().
  - From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

References:
- FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().
  - From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

Prev by Date: Re: Logitech Quickcam Express USB Address Aquisition Issues
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] i386 Encapsulate copying of pgd entries
Previous by thread: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().
Next by thread: Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind]