From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268033AbUHFAkJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:40:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268029AbUHFAkI (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:40:08 -0400 Received: from ylpvm15-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.46]:5539 "EHLO ylpvm15.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268028AbUHFAjz (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:39:55 -0400 From: David Brownell To: ncunningham@linuxmail.org Subject: Re: Solving suspend-level confusion Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:32:04 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Oliver Neukum , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Patrick Mochel References: <20040730164413.GB4672@elf.ucw.cz> <200408041829.45298.david-b@pacbell.net> <1091701150.2964.229.camel@laptop.cunninghams> In-Reply-To: <1091701150.2964.229.camel@laptop.cunninghams> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408051732.04920.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 05 August 2004 03:19, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > That's what my patch does. I kept the existing api untouched so that: > > device_resume(); > > is actually a wrapper for > > device_resume_tree(&default_device_tree); > > Proof of the pudding coming :> Sounds good. Will it be possible to remove devices during these tree operations? Probably never the current one. And (evil chuckle) how will it behave if two tasks are doing that concurrently? The no-overlap case would be fully parallel, I'd hope! - Dave