Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:57:18PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > I'd say scrap (a) _unless_ we're going to add while (1) loops to all
> > the architectures.  Alternatively, we could just accept that
> > machine_power_off() may return and deal with that case (iow, not
> > crash) in generic code.
> 
> What would the right behaviour be
> 
> while(1);
> 
> isn't really nice behaviour on a modern device 

That's an entirely different question... one which also needs fixing
in the hibernate code.  We already know that cpu_relax() in there is
a good thing to do, so that would be a good start.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.
--
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/