From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755345AbZHFMQD (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:16:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755324AbZHFMQD (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:16:03 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:59485 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755317AbZHFMQB (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:16:01 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Add convenience macro to make switching to dev_pm_ops less error-prone Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:16:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.31-rc5-rjw; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Frans Pop , pHilipp Zabel , albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <20090803163304.GF5002@laptop> <200908052330.08452.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090806085144.GS13236@buzzloop.caiaq.de> In-Reply-To: <20090806085144.GS13236@buzzloop.caiaq.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908061416.08564.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 06 August 2009, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:30:07PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote: > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > +#define SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn) \ > > > > +struct dev_pm_ops name = { \ > > > > + .suspend = suspend_fn, \ > > > > + .resume = resume_fn, \ > > > > + .freeze = suspend_fn, \ > > > > + .thaw = resume_fn, \ > > > > + .poweroff = suspend_fn, \ > > > > + .resume = resume_fn, \ > > > > > > That defines .resume twice. Guess the last should be restore. > > > > Yes, thanks to you and Philipp for noticing that and sorry for the mistake. > > When is a good point to resend patches that use this macro? I guess they > won't make it to .31 anyway, right? So I just wait for the next merge > window? Yes, I think that would be the right thing to do. Best, Rafael