WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvops: fix "xm save -c" issue

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 07:23 +0000, SUZUKI, Kazuhiro wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> I split the patch into pm infrastructure part and xen part.
> Actually, I've never post to linux community, so I'm not sure what to
> do.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the Linux source tree has some good
guidance.

In general you need to post your patches inline (not as attachments
which is a difference from the Xen maintainer's policy) with a changelog
message, in this case explaining the need for the new event type and
explaining the use cases etc, and a signed-off-by.

You should send to the subsystem maintainer and the relevant mailing
list, the MAINTAINERS file in the Linux source would help figure out who
they are but in this case I think it is Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
and the linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list. You should cc
xen-devel as well.

It will be interesting to see what upstream make of the use case. I
suspect there might be some common ground with the ability to abort a
hibernation attempt on native for example.

Ian.

> 
> Thanks,
> KAZ
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kenji Wakamiya <wkenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kazuhiro Suzuki <kaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvops: fix "xm save -c" issue
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:14:30 +0000
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 06:28 +0000, SUZUKI, Kazuhiro wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> The following patch fixes 'xm save -c' issue.
> >> We defined 'PMSG_CANCEL' message for suspend cancel situation and
> >> suspend_cancel handler in pm_ops struct.
> >> If the suspend_cancel is defined, suspend_cancel() is called instead
> >> of resume().
> > 
> > Thanks. I like the general shape of this patch but the core pm
> > infrastructure change needs to be split out and sent upstream via the
> > power management maintainer. I think this is Rafael J. Wysocki
> > <rjw@xxxxxxx> and the linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list.
> > 
> > If you also split out the Xen conversion to dev_pm_ops, without the
> > suspend_cancel bit, then I think we can take that bit now and then you
> > can resend the bit which adds the suspend_cancel bits once the core
> > stuff is upstream.
> > 
> > Ian.
> > 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> KAZ
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Kenji Wakamiya <wkenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kazuhiro Suzuki <kaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Kenji Wakamiya <wkenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvops: fix "xm save -c" issue
> >> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:35:09 +0900
> >> 
> >> > Hi Konrand, and sorry for very late response.
> >> > 
> >> > (2011/01/11 2:01), Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> >>> With this change how is the effect of dpm_suspend_start undone in the
> >> >>> suspend cancelled case?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Currently we have
> >> >>>        dpm_suspend_start(PMSG_SUSPEND)
> >> >>>         xs_suspend
> >> >>>           dpm_suspend_noirq(PMSG_SUSPEND)
> >> >>>              SUSPEND
> >> >>>           dpm_resume_noirq(PMSG_RESUME)
> >> >>>         xs_resume or xs_supend_cancel
> >> >>>        dpm_resume_end(PMSG_RESUME)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Which seems nicely nested and logical but by only calling 
> >> >>> dpm_resume_end
> >> >>> in the non-cancelled case we seem to be unbalancing things.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do we need some sort of dpm_resume_cancel, or some way of pushing the
> >> >>> cancelled flag down into the individual xenbus_device.resume handlers?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Should we maybe simply be using a difference PMSG_XXX in the cancelled
> >> >>> case? Is this what one of PMSG_RESTORE or PMSG_RECOVER means?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Looks like to propagate the PMSG_* to the actual device resume 
> >> >>> functions
> >> >>> we would need to provide a pm_ops for the struct bus xenbus_frontend
> >> >>> instead of relying on the legacy handlers. This is probably a
> >> >>> independently good idea anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> ping?
> >> >>
> >> >> Kenji any ideas or patches to address Ian's comments?
> >> > 
> >> > My colleague made a patch which reflected Ian's comments, so I will ask 
> >> > him to post it. Please wait a little.
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Kenji
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Xen-devel mailing list
> >> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > 
> > 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>