Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! > >> > Code is not ready now => it can never be fixed? Thats quite a strange > >> > conclusion to make. > >> > >> It seems there is an fundamental incompatibility with ACPI power off. > >> As best as I can tell the normal case of device_suspend(PMSG_SUSPEND) > >> works reasonably well in

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! Code is not ready now = it can never be fixed? Thats quite a strange conclusion to make. It seems there is an fundamental incompatibility with ACPI power off. As best as I can tell the normal case of device_suspend(PMSG_SUSPEND) works reasonably well in 2.6.x. Powerdown is

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi. On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 03:25, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi! > > > >> >> There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling > >> >> device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because > >> >> the device suspend code was too

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > >> >> There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling >> >> device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because >> >> the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest >> >> piece of evidence it seems to me that

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi. On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 03:25, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because the device suspend code was too immature. With this

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! > >> There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling > >> device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because > >> the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest > >> piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing device_suspend(...) > >> in

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > >> There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling >> device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because >> the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest >> piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! > There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling > device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because > the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest > piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing device_suspend(...) > in kernel_power_off,

FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Early in the 2.6.13 process my kexec related patches were introduced into the reboot path, and under the rule you touch it you fix it it I have been involved in tracking quite a few regressions on the reboot path. Recently with Benjamin Herrenschmidt's removal of device_suppend(PMSG_SUPPEND)

FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Early in the 2.6.13 process my kexec related patches were introduced into the reboot path, and under the rule you touch it you fix it it I have been involved in tracking quite a few regressions on the reboot path. Recently with Benjamin Herrenschmidt's removal of device_suppend(PMSG_SUPPEND)

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off, kernel_halt,

Re: FYI: device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off().

Hi! There as been a fair amount of consensus that calling device_suspend(...) in the reboot path was inappropriate now, because the device suspend code was too immature. With this latest piece of evidence it seems to me that introducing device_suspend(...) in kernel_power_off,