: Tobias Diedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit ed746e3b18f4df18afa3763155972c5835f284c5
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
On Monday, 16 April 2007 09:05, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
As I said before, we have a problem with using the CPU hotplug for
suspending
because of the notifiers that are called from within cpu_up()/cpu_down() and
(sometimes) assume that the system is fully functional.
One obvious
On Monday, 16 April 2007 11:50, Gautham Shenoy wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On 4/15/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As I said before, we have a problem with using the CPU hotplug for
suspending
because of the notifiers that are called from within cpu_up()/cpu_down
On Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:42, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Hi,
The patch looks good to me.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:27:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
---
Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt |9 +++--
arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel_cacheinfo.c|2
Hi,
On Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:02, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
This patch fixes the race pointed out by Oleg Nesterov.
* Freezer marks a thread as freezeable.
* The thread now marks itself PF_NOFREEZE causing it to
freeze on calling try_to_freeze(). Thus the task is frozen, even though
On Thursday, 19 April 2007 23:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:34:19 +0530
Gautham R Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Threads which wait for completion on a frozen thread might result in
causing the freezer to fail, if the waiting thread is freezeable.
There are some
On Friday, 20 April 2007 13:05, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:54:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hmm, can't we do something like this instead:
---
kernel/kthread.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel
On Friday, 20 April 2007 14:26, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:59:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Actually, I thought about it for a while. The thread that is going to stop
another one may temporarily mark itself as freezable in all cases, which
will have
On Friday, 20 April 2007 20:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, we already have four of them (PF_NOFREEZE, PF_FROZEN,
PF_FREEZER_SKIP, TIF_FREEZE), and you will need to introduce two
more for the freezer-based CPU hotplug, so if yet another
On Friday, 20 April 2007 23:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/20, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:54:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hmm, can't we do something like this instead:
---
kernel/kthread.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The task_lock() in include/linux/freezer.h:thaw_process() looks as though it
were protecting p-flags, which is not the case. Add a comment that explains
why it's there.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/freezer.h
On Saturday, 21 April 2007 02:02, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:16:54AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Andi, I think. I've got his firstfloor.org patches applied to this
kernel.
Ah, I saw you patched in CFS
[Sorry for the duplicates, I forgot to add the LKML to the CC list]
Hi,
The following two patches are intended to deal with the problem that some
CPU hotplug notifiers misbehave when they are called after tasks have been
frozen.
The first of them introduces special notifications that should
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since nonboot CPUs are now disabled after tasks and devices have been frozen
and the CPU hotplug infrastructure is used for this purpose, we need special
CPU hotplug notifications that will help the CPU-hotplug-aware subsystems
distinguish normal CPU
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make the microcode driver use the suspend-related CPU hotplug notifications
to handle the CPU hotplug events occuring during system-wide suspend and
resume transitions. Remove the global variable suspend_cpu_hotplug previously
used for this purpose
Hi,
The last two patches from this series are intended to address the problem that
some drivers allocate a lot of memory in their .suspend() routines causing
swsusp to fail (and generally may want to do some things that shouldn't be
done in .suspend()/.resume()).
The first one is a fix.
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the leftover enable_nonboot_cpus() from snapshot_release().
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/power/user.c |1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc6-mm1/kernel/power/user.c
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Move the definition of PAGES_FOR_IO to kernel/power/power.h and introduce
SPARE_PAGES representing the number of pages that should be freed by the
swsusp's memory shrinker in addition to PAGES_FOR_IO so that device drivers can
allocate some memory (up
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make it possible to register suspend notifiers so that subsystems can perform
suspend-related operations that should not be carried out by device drivers'
.suspend() and .resume() routines.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
The following three patches are related to the separation of the freezer flags
from process/threadinfo flags.
The first patch separates the freezer from the PM code, because it's no longer
a PM-specific piece of code. This also makes the second patch look better.
The second patch
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that the freezer is used by kprobes, it is no longer a PM-specific piece of
code. Move the freezer code out of kernel/power and introduce the
CONFIG_FREEZER option that will be chosen automatically if PM or KPROBES is set.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix the problem with kthread_stop() that causes the freezer to fail if a
freezable thread is attempting to stop a frozen one and that may cause the
freezer to fail if the thread being stopped is freezable and
try_to_freeze_tasks() is running concurrently
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/power/kernel_threads.txt |2 -
Documentation
On Sunday, 22 April 2007 23:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
Rafael wrote:
Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
It's getting time I learned what this freezer thing is.
What would you suggest I read?
On Monday, 23 April 2007 16:19, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Hi Satyam,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:39:30AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
Hi Rafael,
+/*
+ * Per task flags used by the freezer
+ *
+ * They should not be referred to directly outside of this file.
+ */
+#define
Hi,
On Monday, 23 April 2007 06:09, Satyam Sharma wrote:
Hi Rafael,
[--snip--]
Also, I do have several gripes against the naming of some of these functions:
static inline int freezing(struct task_struct *p)
This could be called task_should_freeze().
/*
- * Sometimes we may
Hi,
On Monday, 23 April 2007 12:40, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Fix the problem with kthread_stop() that causes the freezer to fail if a
freezable thread is attempting to stop a frozen one and that may cause the
freezer to fail if the thread being stopped is freezable and
On Monday, 23 April 2007 14:35, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix the problem with kthread_stop() that causes the freezer to fail if a
freezable thread is attempting to stop a frozen
On Monday, 23 April 2007 21:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/23, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
/*
@@ -232,6 +233,14 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up
On Monday, 23 April 2007 15:17, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:39:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
@@ -63,9 +100,9 @@ static inline int thaw_process(struct ta
*/
static inline void frozen_process(struct task_struct *p)
{
- p-flags |= PF_FROZEN
On Monday, 23 April 2007 23:16, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:46:37AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2007 14:35, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
+ if (!freezer_should_exempt(current)) {
task_lock
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field in task_struct and
introduce functions to operate them using set_bit() etc.
[...snip...]
--- linux-2.6.21-rc6-mm1.orig/kernel/fork.c
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:41, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:40:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Move all of the freezer-related flags to a separate field
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
I personally think we should do this in dup_task_struct(). In fact, I believe
it is better to replace the
*tsk = *orig
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:48:08 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Make it possible to register suspend notifiers so that subsystems can
perform
suspend-related operations that should not be carried out by device drivers
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:55, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 04/24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Should I clear it in dup_task_struct() or is there a better place?
I personally think we should
On Thursday, 8 March 2007 17:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Using IPI No-Shortcut mode
swsusp: Resume From Partition /dev/sda1
PM: Checking swsusp image.
swsusp: Signature found, resuming
PM: Preparing processes for restore.
Stopping tasks ... done.
PM: Reading swsusp image.
Loading
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 01:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 01:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:36:29 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8136
Let's take this to email
Hi,
I get the following traces from 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 during the resume phase
of testing with 'echo test /sys/power/disk echo disk /sys/power/state':
acpi thermal:00: resuming
pci :00:00.0: resuming
pcieport-driver :00:01.0: resuming
BUG: at drivers/pci/pci.c:679 pci_restore_state()
On Friday, 9 March 2007 02:11, Len Brown wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 18:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 23:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:14:29 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:16, Andrew
On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Prevent the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping()
from triggering by disabling nonboot CPUs before we finally enter the
platform
suspend.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED
suspend.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
kernel/power/disk.c |1 +
kernel/power/user.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c
Hi,
On Friday, 9 March 2007 09:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2.orig/kernel/power/disk.c
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c
@@
On Friday, 9 March 2007 22:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2.orig/kernel/power/disk.c
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c
On Friday, 9 March 2007 23:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3/kernel/power/user.c
===
--- linux-2.6.21-rc3.orig/kernel/power/user.c
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc3/kernel/power/user.c
@@ -402,9 +402,10 @@
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If swsusp is using the platform mode during the resume and the image cannot be
read, the platform mode should be switched off before software_resume() returns.
Make it happen.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel Machek
Hi,
The following three patches make swsusp use its own data structures for memory
management instead of special page flags. Thus the page flags used so far by
swsusp (PG_nosave, PG_nosave_free) can be used for other purposes and I believe
there are some urgend needs of them. :-)
Last week I
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace direct invocations of SetPageNosave(), SetPageNosaveFree() etc. with
calls to inline functions that can be changed in subsequent patches without
modifying the code calling them.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the two page flags that were previously used by swsusp and are no longer
needed.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/page-flags.h | 12
1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make swsusp use memory bitmaps instead of page flags for marking 'nosave' and
free pages. This allows us to 'recycle' two page flags that can be used for
other
purposes. Also, the memory needed to store the bitmaps is allocated when
necessary (ie
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 18:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:33:37AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
One way to embed try_to_freeze() into kthread_should_stop() might be
as follows:
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 19:08, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Suspend to disk doesn't work on my laptop.
The suspend seems to hang while enabling the non-boot cpus again.
with platform = test and state = disk i get this:
[cut]
acpi device:02: freeze
video video:00: freeze
acpi device:01: freeze
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 19:37, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
Could you please put some printk()s in kernel/cpu.c:_cpu_up() to see where
it gets stuck? I bet one of the notifiers goes to sleep (cpufreq, maybe).
Here we go (ok. i forgot __FUNCTION__ ...):
Mar 11 19
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 20:04, Milan Broz wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 19:08, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Suspend to disk doesn't work on my laptop.
The suspend seems to hang while enabling the non-boot cpus again.
with platform = test and state = disk i get
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 20:16, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Milan Broz schrieb:
Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 19:08, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Suspend to disk doesn't work on my laptop.
The suspend seems to hang while enabling the non-boot cpus again
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:23, Milan Broz wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki:
Ah, NO_HZ. Thomas Gleixner's address added to the Cc list.
short printk trace
enable_nonboot_cpus
_cpu_up
raw_notifier_callchain (CPU_UP_PREPARE)
...
update_sched_domains
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:28, Thomas Meyer wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:23, Milan Broz wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki:
Ah, NO_HZ. Thomas Gleixner's address added to the Cc list.
short printk trace
enable_nonboot_cpus
_cpu_up
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:57, Milan Broz wrote:
Thomas Meyer napsal(a):
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:23, Milan Broz wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki:
Ah, NO_HZ. Thomas Gleixner's address added to the Cc list.
short printk trace
Hi,
On Monday, 12 March 2007 09:14, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I personally think we should do the opposite, add
kthread_should_stop_check_freeze()
or something. kthread_should_stop() is like signal_pending(), we can use
it under spin_lock (and it is probably used this way by
On Sunday, 11 March 2007 21:45, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
(sorry if I am CC'ing the wrong people, seemed for me this is related to
rc-2 regression 5/6)
After a very long compile sessions (is there something like git bisect
to speed this up?) to find the config options that break s2ram between
On Monday, 12 March 2007 14:24, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2007 09:14, Pavel Machek wrote:
Can we get better name for this function?
Well, I took the name from the Oleg's message. Can you please suggest
something
Hi,
The following three patches make swsusp use its own data structures for memory
management instead of special page flags, so that these page flags can be used
for other purposes.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace direct invocations of SetPageNosave(), SetPageNosaveFree() etc. with
calls to inline functions that can be changed in subsequent patches without
modifying the code calling them.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the two page flags that were previously used by swsusp and are no longer
needed.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/page-flags.h | 12
1 file changed, 12
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make swsusp use memory bitmaps instead of page flags for marking 'nosave' and
free pages. This allows us to 'recycle' two page flags that can be used for
other
purposes. Also, the memory needed to store the bitmaps is allocated when
necessary (ie
On Tuesday, 13 March 2007 05:08, Dave Jones wrote:
I spent considerable time over the last day or so bisecting to
find out why an X60 stopped resuming somewhen between 2.6.20 and current -git.
(Total lockup, black screen of death).
Do you have CONFIG_TICK_ONESHOT or CONFIG_NO_HZ set? If you
On Thursday, 15 March 2007 20:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:19:20 +0100 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+int create_basic_memory_bitmaps(void)
+{
+ struct memory_bitmap *bm1, *bm2;
+ int error = 0;
+
+ BUG_ON(forbidden_pages_map || free_pages_map
On Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:19:02 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
And why _does_ suspend use GFP_ATOMIC all over the place?
Generally, because it cannot sleep.
Why not?
On Friday, 16 March 2007 17:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I pushed out the -git trees yesterday, but then got distracted, so the
patches and tar-balls and the announcement got delayed until this morning.
Oops. I'm a scatter-brain.
Anyway, the good news about -rc4 is that there's just lots of
Hi,
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 20:38, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong)..
Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:45, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUSEIMLAZY.
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:20, Robert Hancock wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUSEIMLAZY.
Let me put it
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[--snip--]
What I really think would be a clean solution would be sort of
a capability. Either the driver *is* suspend/resume-capable, and
the system can be suspended. Or it is not, and the system must
refuse to suspend. It should not be
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
drivers, and modify only the
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:50:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 14:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:19:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 16:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 2/11/07, Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately it has to be done in one shot for all of the known good
drivers to avoid
user-observable regressions.
No you don't. You can make it a config option that defaults
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 18:27, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The problem is it was made implicit long ago. The design is optimistic,
so
to speak, and I think we have the following choices:
1) Change the design to make the kernel refuse
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 22:02, Alan wrote:
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
they
have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't
sure
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
kernel
feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
That's true, but I assume
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, Alan wrote:
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
they
have to unload the
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:40, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't agree
more that it's
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:26:26AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Nigel, don't
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
centric
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
card that Linux doesn't support well yet), and I know other Suspend2
users doing the same
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:55, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm using M$ hibernation
Hi,
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:10, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:28, Alan wrote:
+PM support:Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop
systems, your
+ driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it
+ should support basic power management by implementing, if
+
On Monday, 12 February 2007 06:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
- once at suspend
- once at resume
which is once more per boot than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Howdy!
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
If
On Monday, 12 February 2007 13:59, Gerhard Mack wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual
On Monday, 12 February 2007 17:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power
management as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
.resume =
On Monday, 12 February 2007 22:24, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
have a
shared
/Documentation/power/drivers-testing.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+Testing suspend and resume support in drivers
+ (C) 2007 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
+Unfortunately, to effectively test the support for the system-wide suspend and
+resume transitions in a driver, it is necessary to suspend
On Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:42, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
I think we can introduce a pm_safe flag that will indicate if the driver
handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the
drivers
currently in the tree as pm_safe unless we know
On Wednesday, 14 February 2007 16:41, Igor Stoppa wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:47 +1100, ext Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 00:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
Here's my attempt to document the requirements with respect to the basic
PM
support
Hi,
On Wednesday, 14 February 2007 15:40, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Hello Everybody,
This is an experiment towards process_freezer based implementation
of cpu-hotplug. This is mainly based on ideas of Andrew Morton,
Ingo Molnar and Paul Mckenney featured in the discussion
Hi,
I've got this in the resume-during-suspend phase of suspend to disk with
2.6.20-git10 on HPC nx6325:
PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:06.0 to 64
sata_sil :00:12.0: resuming
BUG: at drivers/pci/pci.c:817 pcim_enable_device()
Call Trace:
[8031c05e]
On Thursday, 15 February 2007 07:34, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:43:35PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday, 14 February 2007 15:40, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
Hello Everybody,
This is an experiment towards process_freezer based implementation
Update:
On Thursday, 15 February 2007 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
I've got this in the resume-during-suspend phase of suspend to disk with
2.6.20-git10 on HPC nx6325:
PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:06.0 to 64
sata_sil :00:12.0: resuming
BUG: at drivers/pci
1 - 100 of 29240 matches
Mail list logo
