Re: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from22.214.171.124 to 126.96.36.199 - Dell Inspiron 600m
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sun Nov 01 2009 - 12:22:22 EST
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> If people don't object, I'll push it through the suspend-2.6 tree along
> with a few other bug fixes.
No objections, but a cleanup request:
> +static int socket_early_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
> + if (skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND)
> + socket_start_resume(skt);
> + return 0;
> +static int socket_late_resume(struct pcmcia_socket *skt)
> + if (!(skt->state & SOCKET_SUSPEND))
> + return 0;
As far as I can tell, that "SOCKET_SUSPEND" test is totally pointless.
That socket _is_ going to be suspended, and testing for it here just seems
to confuse things.
So I'd remove it from both early_resume and late_resume, and only keep it
in the case of the legacy user-requested suspend/resume (do we even do
that any more?).
The SOCKET_SUSPEND flag itself is still relevant, of course, since the
state change handling will test it (in order to avoid insert/remove
handlign while we have the suspend flag set). It's just that the suspend
code shouldn't _test_ it, since the suspend code is what sets it in the
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/