Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 2)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 15:33:22 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > so I'd say a
> > > failure to resume is just a limited subcase of a device vanishing during
> > > sleep.
> > 
> > I'll go along with that.  If a device vanishes during sleep, the PM 
> > core isn't responsible for unregistering it -- the device's subsystem 
> > is.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. You are right.

Still, if ->resume() returns an error, does it make sense, from the PM core's
point of view, to execute ->complete() for that device, for example?

If you think it does, that behavior should be clearly documented (I didn't
think about that before).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/