>>> On 04.05.16 at 04:14, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> On May 04, 2016 10:00 AM, Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Xu, Quan
>> > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:25 PM
>> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c
>> > index 2885e31..9097333 100644
>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c
>> > @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ void do_suspend_lowlevel(void);
>> >
>> > static int device_power_down(void)
>> > {
>> > + int err;
>> > +
>> > console_suspend();
>> >
>> > time_suspend();
>> > @@ -53,11 +55,22 @@ static int device_power_down(void)
>> >
>> > ioapic_suspend();
>> >
>> > - iommu_suspend();
>> > + err = iommu_suspend();
>> > +
>> > + if ( err )
>> > + goto iommu_suspend_error;
>> >
>> > lapic_suspend();
>> >
>> > return 0;
>> > +
>> > + iommu_suspend_error:
>> > + ioapic_resume();
>> > + i8259A_resume();
>> > + time_resume();
>> > + console_resume();
>> > +
>> > + return err;
>> > }
>>
>> Jan had comment to better reuse device_power_up... looks no change in this
>> version.
>
> Yes, __iiuc__, this may be an optimization, but not a must.
> We can discuss this in detail In this version.
As an optimization it would indeed be quite pointless here. My
request was more for maintainability: By re-using the function
future changes don't need to go to two places, and hence there's
no risk of one of them getting forgotten.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
