On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or > > hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in > > that > > cases. For this reason, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism allowing > > one > > to ask the PM core to remove a device object corresponding to a suspended > > device on one's behalf. > > > > Define function destroy_suspended_device() that will schedule the removal of > > a device object corresponding to a suspended device by the PM core during > > the > > subsequent resume. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sorry, a small fix is needed for this patch. Namely, dpm_sysfs_remove(dev) > should not be called by device_pm_schedule_removal(), because it will be > called > anyway from device_pm_remove() when the device object is finally unregistered > (we're talking here about unlikely error paths only, but still).
The situation is a little confusing, because the source files under drivers/base/power are maintained in Greg's tree and he already has gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch installed. That patch conflicts with this one. One of the these two patches will have to be rewritten to apply on top of the other. Which do you think should be changed? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
