Re: [PATCH 4/6] kexec jump: in sync with hibernation implementation

[Huang Ying]

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 11:22 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Add device_pm_lock() and device_pm_unlock() in kernel_kexec() to be
> > in sync with current hibernation implementation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > ---
> >  kernel/kexec.c |    2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > --- a/kernel/kexec.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kexec.c
> > @@ -1457,6 +1457,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
> >  		error = disable_nonboot_cpus();
> >  		if (error)
> >  			goto Resume_devices;
> > +		device_pm_lock();
> >  		local_irq_disable();
> >  		/* At this point, device_suspend() has been called,
> >  		 * but *not* device_power_down(). We *must*
> > @@ -1485,6 +1486,7 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
> >  		device_power_up(PMSG_RESTORE);
> >   Enable_irqs:
> >  		local_irq_enable();
> > +		device_pm_unlock();
> >  		enable_nonboot_cpus();
> >   Resume_devices:
> >  		device_resume(PMSG_RESTORE);
> > 
> 
> Would it be possible to create common function for hibernation and
> kexec? Keeping complex stuff like this in sync is ugly.

Yes, it is ugly. But it is a little difficult to do that. Hibernation
one is more complex than this one.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/