On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:45:15PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > And yes, we _should_ care about whether or not any interface is
> > > still active, until the pm core code starts to pay attention to
> > > the driver model tree at all times ... even outside of system-wide
> > > suspend transitions. Today, the pm core code doesn't even use
> > > that tree directly, and all runtime state changes (like selective
> > > suspend with USB) completely bypass that pm tree.
> >
> > Hm, ok, yes, we should care about interfaces, but we need some way to
> > only walk them, not anything else that might be attached to us...
>
> In my upcoming patch set this test isn't needed at all, because suspending
> a device automatically suspends all of its interfaces first. I've already
> submitted the first few revised patches in that set (not the part that
> removes the test, though), but you've probably been too busy to look at
> them yet.
I've glanced at them (and yes, been busy, they are still in my TO-APPLY
queue, trying to sync up with Linus first), but I don't see anything in
that set that changes the suspend logic.
Or am I just missing something obvious? Which patch does that in your
revised series?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
