Re: Re: Possible problem with device_move()

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday, 2 August 2007 16:24, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > > Perhaps we should create dpm_active right before the suspend, by really
> > > > traversing the device tree, when we own all device semaphores and no device
> > > > objects can be added/removed?
> > > 
> > > We're doing okay the way things are.  Changing the order is more likely
> > > to cause new problems than to solve existing ones.
> > 
> > Well, my idea is not to change the order, but to create the list from scratch
> > when we need it and not in advance, because creating the list in advance
> > causes problems to appear.
> 
> Doing it that way will almost certainly result in a different order 
> from the one we have now.

Yes, but wouldn't that order be more accurate?

> And it won't help the EHCI issue, because there the question is which of
> several siblings should come last. 

Why not?  If the device can indicate something like "place me after that one"
to the code creating the list, we can handle that too. 

> > In fact, if the system is never suspended, the list that we create is not even
> > useful for anything.
> 
> True.  But it doesn't take up much space, especially if PM isn't 
> configured.  And creating the list doesn't take much time.

Sure.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth