Re: [RFC] New system device API

From: Nigel Cunningham (
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 18:24:07 EST

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 11:16, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > Can I bring up an issue a little off topic? Is it currently possible for
> > us to say 'I want to suspend X but not Y?', and if so how is it done? I
> > ask because someone recently mentioned the spinning up and down of IDE
> > during swsusp. That occurs because we can (AFAIK) only say suspend
> > everything at the moment. It would be good if we could put to sleep
> > everything except your system devices and the devices used to write
> > the
> Well, you need to suspend devices used to write the image, too, so you
> have state to return to after resume. You only do not want disks to
> spin down. Perhaps disk can just special-case it ("If I am going to
> swsusp, I need to save state, but do not really need to spin down").

Mmm. Sounds ugly though. Would it be fair to say we want to S5 some
devices and S3 others? Perhaps that sort of terminology might be

> > image while preparing the image, and only suspend the remaining devices
> > once the image has been written. Is such a thing already implemented?
> >
> > As an aside, I've gone to a 1.0 pre series for 2.4 swsusp, so it
> > shouldn't be long before I'm working on 2.5. I've already created
> >, but nothing is in it at the moment. My intention is
> > that as I prepare the patches and Pavel says 'That looks ok', I'll add
> > them to the tree and we can ask Linus to pull from there.
> Well, I'm not allowed to use bitkeeper, so bk tree is not too exciting
> for me. But I can bless patches all right ;-).

That's all I need :> Is there another way that you could use?



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST