Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf: add calls to suspend trace point

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > >> I am in favor of 3) of 4).
> > >> What do you think?
> > >
> > > Why don't we keep the tracepoints as proposed _and_ add two additional
> > > tracepoints around device suspend-resume?
> > I like the idea but that requires to extend the current API with
> > additional suspend tracepoints or device state change tracepoints.
> > That can be done once the current API is firmly in place.
> > Today the only trace API for suspend is machine_suspend(unsigned int
> > state), so I think the best option is 3) here above.
> > 
> > Unless there is an objection I am pushing 3) asap.
> 
> Fine by me.

Why not...

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/