Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To:        Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ACPI project progress report 
Message-ID:  <200006191720.NAA30894@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
References:  <200006191642.JAA08637@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <200006191707.KAA08746@mass.osd.bsdi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:07:26 -0700, Mike Smith <msmith@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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006191720.NAA30894>