From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 19 10:20:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420F837BCD7; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA30894; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:20:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:20:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200006191720.NAA30894@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Mike Smith Cc: Warner Losh , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ACPI project progress report In-Reply-To: <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com> References: <200006191642.JAA08637@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > Hmm, this has me thinking again about suspend/resume. In the current > context, can we expect a suspend veto from some function to actually > DTRT? (ie. drivers that have been suspended get a resume call). That's how I originally implemented it, but I'm not sure whether that has been maintained or not. > Or should we make two passes over the suspend method? One with " > intention to suspend at this level", the second to actually perform the > suspension once the first has been accepted? I think this is a good idea, and better than my implementation. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message