From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767590AbXCIWsW (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:48:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767589AbXCIWsV (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:48:21 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:49631 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767588AbXCIWsU (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:48:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:48:06 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: Disable nonboot CPUs before entering platform suspend Message-ID: <20070309224806.GD1818@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200703072044.12021.rjw@sisk.pl> <200703092224.20432.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070309221300.GB1818@elf.ucw.cz> <200703092334.01189.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703092334.01189.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 2007-03-09 23:34:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 9 March 2007 23:13, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc3.orig/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc3/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > @@ -402,9 +402,10 @@ static int snapshot_ioctl(struct inode * > > > > > > > > > > case PMOPS_ENTER: > > > > > if (data->platform_suspend) { > > > > > + disable_nonboot_cpus(); > > > > > kernel_shutdown_prepare(SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > error = pm_ops->enter(PM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > - error = 0; > > > > > + enable_nonboot_cpus(); > > > > > > > > Why did we discard return code in previous versions? Do we still want > > > > to do that? > > > > > > I think it was a mistake. > > > > I took a look at git-annotate, and it is yours code, so I assume you > > are right. ACK, then. > > Thanks! > > BTW, what about the patch at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/8/363? Seems obviously correct to me (ACK), but I did not have time to test it. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html