Re: Help needed, Re: [Bug #14334] pcmcia suspend regression from2.6.31.1 to 2.6.31.2 - Dell Inspiron 600m

[Linus Torvalds]

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 
first place.

		Linus
--
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/