On Thursday 20 September 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 20 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:33, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > Maybe S0 should be taken outside the #ifdef and the loop as that
> > > > state is also basically always there?
> > >
> > > Don't think it is worth the trouble. We already have this loop almost
> > > completely unrolled, let's not make it complete mess...
> >
> > Well, you could use "(supports S0" instead of just "(supports". ;-)
>
> After thinking about this a bit more, I think this does make sense for
> three (admittedly minor) reasons:
> - consistency between messages with and without CONFIG_SUSPEND
> - consistency with /proc/acpi/sleep
> - avoiding unnecessary change from previous versions.
One additional reason...
With current code, sleep_states(0) will not be set if compiled without
CONFIG_SUSPEND, which means that S0 will also disappear from
/proc/acpi/sleep. With pre-2.6.23 code it would be listed there.
I think that is even a more relevant change than the display issue and could
possibly even be considered a user-space interface regression.
My proposed patch fixes that too.
Note that the patch currently does not call acpi_get_sleep_type_data for S0,
but (partially from Rafael's comment) I was assuming that for S0 that does
not really matter. If it does, then the patch could easily be adjusted to
include that.
-
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]
