From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: parallel suspend/resume Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20071208102143.GA7195@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20071207180112.8C68B1E3692@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <200712080900.45623.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712080900.45623.oliver@neukum.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat 2007-12-08 09:00:44, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Freitag, 7. Dezember 2007 19:01:12 schrieb David Brownell: > > FWIW the appended patch removes that rude "order of registration" > > policy, so that the suspend/resume list matches the device tree. > > It's behaved OK on PCs and, in light duty, a few development boards; > > I've carried it around most of this year. > > As it is a tree, why not store it as such? IIRC because we do not want recursive tree walkers in the kernel -- stack limits. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html