On Thursday, 5 July 2007 02:15, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki writes:
>
> > This is incompatible with the code in kernel/power/main.c, since we only
> > disable the nonboot CPUs after devices have been suspended. Do you think that
> > your framework can be modified to work without disabling the nonboot CPUs
> > by the user space?
>
> Sure. It was a "if it can be done in userspace, do it in userspace"
> kind of decision, but I'm not wedded to it.
>
> I actually do want to converge to using the generic suspend-to-ram
> code on powerbooks. I just want to avoid causing regressions for
> powerbook users, including myself. :)
Okay, but my question is this: Would that be possible, within your framework,
to disable the nonboot CPUs _after_ suspending devices?
Can you please point me to your high-level suspend code?
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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]
