> > Admittedly I didn't care about swsusp so far. Given the big fat warning on
> > top of Documentation/swsusp.txt I would not even try and i personally
> > don't see what I would miss without swsusp.
> That's okay... Just support your DMA-ing devices are supported.
No matter whether it would be ISA-DMA or PCI busmastering I guess?
Not sure whether we can claim most irda drivers ready for swsusp then.
vlsi_ir should be fine and for irda-usb I assume it would be up to the
hcd - but don't know about the others...
> > For the meantime, I think we should apply this if somebody would explain
> > what's going on here.
> We need kernel thread to sleep at defined place. Process running
> userspace can be stopped any time, but processes running in kernel can
> be only stopped at defined places, to avoid unexpected surprises.
Ok, thanks for explaining!
> If it is possible to sleep at place "a", and no locks needed for
> suspend are held at "a", inserting
> if (current->flags & PF_FREEZE)
> is the right thing to do.
Ok, so the proposed patch is doing the right thing and should be applied.
Pavel, two more questions:
* For a kernel compiled with CONFIG_SWSUSP=n, may I assume PF_FREEZE would
never be set or at least refrigerator would be noop?
* Isn't there a race on SMP (and probably UP with CONFIG_PREEMPT) when
PF_FREEZE gets modified by another cpu right after the test?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/