On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > 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?
Well, from the bisectability point of view, it would be better to adjust gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch and let the $subject patch series go first, if you don't mind. Rafael -- 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/
