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-hackers" 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>