From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:59:10 +0200 Message-ID: <4869705.1kam6LnVRF@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1372255575-29567-1-git-send-email-benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> <51CB28D102000078000E0DF8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:52311 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752145Ab3FZStl (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:49:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51CB28D102000078000E0DF8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Ben Guthro , Bob Moore , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 04:45:53 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.06.13 at 17:03, Ben Guthro wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro wrote: > >>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > >>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get > >>> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so > >>> requested). Fix this, requiring a parameter to be added to the > >>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro > >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > >> > >> I think these are intended to reflect the flow of things, so > >> should be reversed (also in the other patches). > >> > >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c > >>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ > >>> */ > >>> > >>> #include > >>> +#include > >> > >> This also got complaints, so I'd be very surprised if they took it now. > > > > I did see these complaints in the last version. > > However, the file drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c contains this include, > > and has since > > > > commit 09f98a825a821f7a3f1b162f9ed023f37213a63b > > Author: Tang Liang > > Date: Fri Dec 9 10:05:54 2011 +0800 > > > > So since this is the extended sleep file, vs the standard one - I > > don't see why such a restriction would be placed on the former, but > > not the latter. > > In essence they said (in the same thread I pointed you to) that > according to the current policy this include is wrong and should > be dropped. > > Now, if you can get along without dropping it that'll likely be fine, > but I doubt they'll allow you to add another instance of this. Actually, I'd prefer not to add new dependencies on the "old" include either. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.