< static int suspends_pending; /* = 0 */
--- > static int suspends_pending;Is it not good practice to note when the code _assumes_ zero- initialization? I have seen comments like these elsewhere in the kernel sources.
< static int use_apm_idle; /* = 0 */ < static unsigned int last_jiffies; /* = 0 */ < static unsigned int last_stime; /* = 0 */
--- > static int use_apm_idle = 0; > static unsigned int last_jiffies = 0; > static unsigned int last_stime = 0;Are static variables defined within functions not initialized to zero at load time, as global static variables are?
< ignore_sys_suspend = 0;
--- > waiting_for_resume = 0;Don't you think "ignore_sys_suspend" is a name more consistent with the other "ignore_yadda_yadda" variable names? Minor issue.
Everything else looks good to me.
On Sun, 2002-01-06 at 23:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > This is my version of the combined APM patches; > > Change notification order so that user mode is notified > before drivers of impending suspends. > Move the idling back into the idle loop. > A couple of small tidy ups. > > See header comments for attributions. > > This works for me (including as a module). > > Please test and let me know - it seems to lower my power requirements > by about 10% on my Thinkpad (over stock 2.4.17). > > http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/2.4.17-APM.1.diff
The kernel compiles fine with your patch; I'll test over the next few days.
Thanks Thomas
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/