[PATCH 1/1] PM: Make warning in suspend_test_finish() less likely to happen

[Leann Ogasawara]

On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 14:41 +0000, Stefan Bader wrote:
> As this is one the most unnecessary warnings we got around and apparently
> has been annoying upstream too, plus the change is least likely to cause
> any regression.

We're also seeing a huge flood of bug reports due to this warning.
Hopefully this patch will cut down the noise.

Acked-by: Leann Ogasawara <leann.ogasawara at canonical.com>

> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl>
> > 
> > Bug-Link: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/464552
> > 
> > Increase TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS to 10 so the warning in
> > suspend_test_finish() doesn't annoy the users of slower systems so much.
> > 
> > Also, make the warning print the suspend-resume cycle time, so that we
> > know why the warning actually triggered.
> > 
> > Patch prepared during the hacking session at the Kernel Summit in Tokyo.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl>
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org>
> > (cherry picked from commit 04bf7539c08d64184736cdc5e4ad617eda77eb0f)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw at canonical.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader at canonical.com>
> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/power/suspend_test.c |    5 +++--
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/suspend_test.c b/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> > index 17d8bb1..25596e4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
> >   * The time it takes is system-specific though, so when we test this
> >   * during system bootup we allow a LOT of time.
> >   */
> > -#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS	5
> > +#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS	10
> >  
> >  static unsigned long suspend_test_start_time;
> >  
> > @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ void suspend_test_finish(const char *label)
> >  	 * has some performance issues.  The stack dump of a WARN_ON
> >  	 * is more likely to get the right attention than a printk...
> >  	 */
> > -	WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000), "Component: %s\n", label);
> > +	WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000),
> > +	     "Component: %s, time: %u\n", label, msec);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> 
>