[Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 3/4] swsusp: Change code ordering in user.c

Change the ordering of code in kernel/power/user.c so that device_suspend() is called before disable_nonboot_cpus() and device_resume() is called after enable_nonboot_cpus(). This is needed to make the userland suspend call pm_ops-finish() after enable_nonboot_cpus() and before device_resume(),

[Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm] PM: Change ordering of suspend and resume code

Hi, As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call pm_ops-finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be called before pm_ops-finish() (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html). For consistency, it seems reasonable to call

[Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 4/4] swsusp: Change pm_ops handling by userland interface

Make the userland interface of swsusp call pm_ops-finish() after enable_nonboot_cpus() and before resume_device(), as indicated by the recent discussion on Linux-PM (cf. http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004164.html). This patch changes the SNAPSHOT_PMOPS ioctl so that its

[Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/4] PM: Change code ordering in main.c

Change the ordering of code in kernel/power/main.c so that device_suspend() is called before disable_nonboot_cpus() and pm_ops-finish() is called after enable_nonboot_cpus() and before device_resume(), as indicated by recent discussion on Linux-PM (cf.

[Suspend-devel] DealofDay: Fetching Ford.

It's hardly desirable to introduce the neurotic loop of thought presented here into the reified environment of a media obsessed with the means of its own production and maintenance. ' 'Well its not quite. DealofDay: Fetching fairfieldresorts. in short there's very little to balance. No

Re: [Suspend-devel] Software Suspend. Works succesful on Dell Lattitude CPx650GT

Hi, i'm taking suspend-devel into cc: to make your results available to a broader audience :-) On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:12:01PM -0300, Manuel Jander wrote: Hi, I just tried s2ram on my laptop. It was not known to the program, but worked using the -f switch. No other workaround was

Re: [Suspend-devel] s2ram : Candidate for the whitelist

Hi, i'm taking suspend-devel into cc: to present your results to a wider audience :-) On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:20:21AM +0100, Yaroslav Latyshev wrote: FYI (addition to the whitelist): s2ram -s -f works fine (in X11) on: sys_vendor = Sony Corporation sys_product =

Re: [Suspend-devel] s2ram Dell Latitude D820

Hi, (suspend-devel added to cc: to get the message into the archive :-) On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:59:15AM +0100, Johannes Engel wrote: Stefan Seyfried schrieb: On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:55:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Machine is unknown. This machine can be

Re: [Suspend-devel] s2ram

Hi, i'm taking suspend-devel into cc:, so you'll probably get a faster turnaround time for the next mails :-) On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:23:24PM -0500, Mike Farrell wrote: Hello seife, I'm having trouble getting my laptop to suspend (even under the most minimal environment with

Re: [Suspend-devel] s2ram whitelist entry

Hi, (adding the suspend-devel list to cc: to get your findings into the mail archive :-) On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:00:55PM -0500, Allen wrote: sys_vendor = Dell Computer Corporation sys_product = Dimension 3000 sys_version = bios_version = A02 Is that a desktop machine

Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm] PM: Change ordering of suspend and resume code

Hi, On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: Hi, As indicated in a recent thread on Linux-PM, it's necessary to call pm_ops-finish() before devce_resume(), but enable_nonboot_cpus() has to be called before pm_ops-finish() (cf.