[PATCH 03/44] hibernate: Call have_kernel_poweroff instead of checking pm_power_off
linux at roeck-us.net
Fri Oct 10 00:24:13 EST 2014
On 10/09/2014 03:32 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2014-10-06 22:28:05, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Poweroff handlers may now be installed with register_poweroff_handler.
>> Use the new API function have_kernel_poweroff to determine if a poweroff
>> handler has been installed.
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net>
>> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel at ucw.cz>
>> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net>
>> kernel/power/hibernate.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> index a9dfa79..20353c5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
>> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static void power_down(void)
>> case HIBERNATION_PLATFORM:
>> case HIBERNATION_SHUTDOWN:
>> - if (pm_power_off)
>> + if (have_kernel_poweroff())
> poweroff -> power_off.
As mentioned in my other reply, that was on purpose to distinguish
existing functions from poweroff handler functions.
> But if you are playing with this, anyway... does it make sense to
> introduce kernel_power_off() that just works, no need to check
I am trying not to change existing behavior.
kernel_power_off is an existing function which does some cleanup
before calling machine_power_off which in turn calls do_kernel_poweroff
(or currently pm_power_off and may do some other machine specific stuff.
Sure, poweroff handling could be unified further. We could decide to
enter an endless loop if machine_power_off() returns, or we could decide
to dump a warning or panic in this case. But that is all separate from
the issue I am trying to solve here, which is to provide a capability to
register more than one poweroff handler. It would also not be that simple,
since some architectures call machine_power_off() directly from various
More information about the Linuxppc-dev