From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758539AbXGWM34 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:29:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755881AbXGWM3n (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:29:43 -0400 Received: from smtp-out001.kontent.com ([81.88.40.215]:53286 "EHLO smtp-out.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755935AbXGWM3m convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:29:42 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:29 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, nigel@suspend2.net, jbms@cmu.edu, miltonm@bga.com, ying.huang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@lang.hm, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <200707231408.32051.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707231431.30372.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > > The reason is that we want them to "park" in safe places, ie. where there > > are no locks held etc.  Thus, these safe places need to be chosen somehow > > and since they are not marked throughout the code, we choose the obvious > > one. :-) > > Why shouldn't locks be held? > > No locks which are required for suspend must be held, sure.  But > otherwise holding locks doesn't matter at all. If you can provide a way to tell them apart, this would work. Regards Oliver