On Tuesday 22 January 2008 00:36:45 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I still don't like this function wrapping.
I'm pretty sure the additional parameter to the function is not
needed. We can check dev-suspend_in_progress to find out
if we are in a up/down or in a suspend/resume cycle.
You're
On Monday 21 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I modified the patch to implement something like this. This still is one big
patch against everything what's necessary. [BTW, in the current version
of the code, b43_resume() may leave wl-mutex locked in the error paths,
which also is fixed
On Monday, 21 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 21 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[--snip--]
Index: linux-2.6.24-rc8-mm1/drivers/net/wireless/b43/leds.h
===
---
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Besides, if you're going to register the device right back again
during
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Nah, please don't obfuscate the code.
Better add a flag to struct b43_wldev and check that in the few places
that need different behaviour.
I can do that, if you prefer, but that will look worse, IMHO.
I'm pretty sure it won't. We had
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Nah, please don't obfuscate the code.
Better add a flag to struct b43_wldev and check that in the few places
that need different behaviour.
I can do that, if you prefer, but that
On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Besides, if you're going to register the device right back again during
the subsequent resume, then why go to the trouble of unregistering it
during suspend? Why not just leave it registered
On Sunday 13 January 2008 18:08:57 Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 13 January 2008 00:08:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
There is a problem with b43_suspend() that it (indirectly) causes
On Sunday, 13 of January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 13 January 2008 00:08:29 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
There is a problem with b43_suspend() that it (indirectly) causes
b43_leds_exit() to be called, which attempts to unregister the leds device
objects, which is forbidden (ie. you
