Pavel Machek <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi!
>
>> In the lead up to 2.6.13 I fixed a large number of reboot
>> problems by making the calling conventions consistent. Despite
>> checking and double checking my work it appears I missed an
>> obvious one.
>>
>> The S4 suspend code for PM_DISK_PLATFORM was also calling
>> device_shutdown without setting system_state, and was
>> not calling the appropriate reboot_notifier.
>
> ACK on both. But should not you submit patch via -mm, so it gets at
> least some testing there?
The code is obviously correct, and the people with the problem
have reported that this approach solves it.
If this bit of functionality is to even work we need to do
something like this.
So I don't see what benefit putting this in -mm would give. If
I was aggressive I would say that this needs to be in 2.6.13.N.
If I'm not following some procedure I don't have a problem
changing though.
This is the final fix I know of to get a consistent set of semantics
for the everything in the ``reboot path''.
>From a practical standpoint I am very tardy in getting this out.
Eric
-
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/
[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]
| |
 |