Re: [RFC][Patch 0/3] Fix device_move() vs. dpm_list issues.

[Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:53:18 -0500 (EST),
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

> After looking through your s390 patch more carefully, I get a mixed-up 
> feeling -- as though you think dpm_list goes in reverse order. 

list_add_tail confused me...

> Therefore all you need to do is add a third argument to device_move(); 
> it can be a enumeration taking on one of the values
> 
> 	DPM_ORDER_DEV_AFTER_PARENT,
> 	DPM_ORDER_PARENT_BEFORE_DEV,
> 	DPM_ORDER_DEV_LAST.

and DPM_ORDER_DO_NOTHING.

> 
> (Come to think of it, I don't understand the reason for moving the
> device to the end of dpm_list.  What point is there in doing this?)

Completeness. It is not strictly needed.

> 
> 
> > Given that the callers still need to specify what to do, I find it much
> > easier (and the resulting code much more understandable) if the callers
> > fix up dpm_list...
> 
> I disagree.  Doing it the way described above would add less than 10
> lines of code to device_move() and one argument to each caller, whereas
> your changes are a lot more extensive.

I'm still not quite convinced, but I'll give it a try.