Subject: Re: linux-next: x86/driver-core merge failure

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 00:37:43 +0200

On Monday, 19 of May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, 19 of May 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Greg, Ingo,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the x86 tree got a conflict in 
> > > kernel/power/main.c between commit 
> > > 7c6e17af5dfa9e70e1eb32981f3f608ef1d0eca5 ("PM: Introduce new top 
> > > level suspend and hibernation callbacks") from the driver-core tree 
> > > and commit 338e075309d960eb91cc8540f69b9cb5b2967d3e ("sleepy linux 
> > > self-test") from the x86 tree.  The former added a parameter to 
> > > device_resume() while the latter put a 
> > > suspend_test_start()/suspend_test_finish() pair around the 
> > > device_resume() call in the error path of 
> > > suspend_devices_and_enter(). It is a trivial fixup.
> > 
> > Okay, but I think the "sleepy linux self-test" patch should be 
> > updated.
> 
> do you have time to have a look? It's in the 'tip/scratch' branch of 
> -tip:
> 
>    http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
> 
> commit:
> 
> | commit 338e075309d960eb91cc8540f69b9cb5b2967d3e
> | Author: David Brownell <[email-masked]>
> | Date:   Fri May 16 10:12:36 2008 +0200
> |
> |     sleepy linux self-test
> 
> it was included in linux-next by mistake - but while we are at it it 
> might make sense to make it work properly?

I will look at it later this week.

Still, it's better to wait until the driver core PM patches from the Greg's
tree get merged before pushing any further patches thouching suspend code IMO.
This way we'll avoid quite some headaches for everyone.

Thanks,
Rafael