From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030192AbVIAPQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:16:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030194AbVIAPQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:16:22 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:56511 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030192AbVIAPQV (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:16:21 -0400 To: ncunningham@cyclades.com Cc: Pierre Ossman , Pavel Machek , Meelis Roos , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown Subject: Re: reboot vs poweroff (was: Linux 2.6.13) References: <20050901062406.EBA5613D5B@rhn.tartu-labor> <1125557333.12996.76.camel@localhost> <4316F4E3.4030302@drzeus.cx> <1125578897.4785.23.camel@localhost> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:15:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1125578897.4785.23.camel@localhost> (Nigel Cunningham's message of "Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:48:17 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nigel Cunningham writes: > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:32, Pierre Ossman wrote: >> Meelis Roos wrote: >> > >> > It's OK then - I'm not using any suspend and I had a problem that my >> > machine powered down instead of reboot. The patch that went into 2.6.13 >> > after rc7 fixed it for me. So the current tree is OK for me and if it's >> > OK for you too after suspend2 changes then this case can probably be >> > closed. >> > >> >> I'm still having problems with this patch. Both swsusp and swsusp2 are >> affected. Perhaps the fix Nigel did needs to be done to swsusp aswell? > > Yes, it does need modifying. I'll leave it to Pavel to do that though as > he's more familiar with the intricacies of that code than I am. Are suspend and suspend2 not calling kernel_power_off()? I am not certain about that code path but I worked hard in the lead up to 2.6.13 to get everyone on the same page so we did not have strange reboot issues on one code path and not on another. It is possible that the code path in suspend is so strange I did not recognize it. How do you initiate a S4 power off? I can understand suspend2 having problems as it isn't merged but suspend is merged isn't it? Hmm. Looking at that bug report it specifies 2.6.11. Does this problem really happen in 2.6.13? Eric