From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: parallel suspend/resume Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:24:28 +0100 Message-ID: <200712081224.29239.oliver@neukum.org> References: <200712080900.45623.oliver@neukum.org> <20071208102143.GA7195@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071208102143.GA7195@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Samstag, 8. Dezember 2007 11:21:43 schrieb Pavel Machek: > 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. Then use a non-recursive algorithm. Regards Oliver