Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM / core: Direct handling of DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND and DPM_FLAG_LEAVE_SUSPENDED

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Ulf Hansson wrote:

> > While I acknowledge that Ulf doesn't appear to be convinced by my
> > arguments, I also see no technical reason why this cannot go in.
> 
> Correct, I am not convinced this is the right path as a general
> optimization, at least in it's current form. The main argument is
> about skipping invoking callbacks, as I have stated.
> 
> Moreover, I think we are lacking important input from some more
> experienced PM core code contributors, like Alan, Kevin etc. If any of
> those guys would give an ack, that would also make me more comfortable
> with this.
> 
> On the other hand, I realize that we can't wait forever for that to happen.

Sad to say, I have not been paying any significant attention to this 
patch series.  The major points I have gleaned are that these are all 
relatively small optimizations, and that by default the patches do not 
change existing behavior (they are opt-in).

So at first glance there's no pressing reason not to apply them.  But 
admittedly, this viewpoint ignores the larger picture.

Alan Stern