Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> > 
> > It only seems that way because you didn't take into account devices 
> > that suspend synchronously but whose children suspend asynchronously.
> 
> But why would I care? If somebody suspends synchronously, then that's what 
> he wants.

It doesn't mean he wants to block unrelated devices from suspending 
asynchronously, merely because they happen to come earlier in the list.

> > A synchronous suspend routine for a device with async child suspends
> > would have to look just like your usb_node_suspend():
> 
> Sure. But that sounds like a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" situation. 
> Don't do that.
> 
> Make the USB host controller do its suspend asynchronously. We don't 
> suspend PCI bridges anyway, iirc (but I didn't actually check). And at 
> worst, we can make the PCI _bridges_ know about async suspends, and solve 
> it that way - without actually making any normal PCI drivers do it.

This sounds suspiciously like pushing the problem up a level and 
hoping it will go away.  (Sometimes that even works.)

In the end it isn't a very big issue.  Using one vs. two passes in 
dpm_suspend() is pretty unimportant.

Alan Stern

P.S.: In fact I planned all along to handle USB host controllers 
asynchronously anyway, since their resume routines contain some long 
delays.  I was merely using them as an example.

--
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/