From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Courtier-Dutton Subject: Re: parallel suspend/resume Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:08:41 +0000 Message-ID: <475A7B39.7030106@superbug.co.uk> References: <20071207180112.8C68B1E3692@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <200712080900.45623.oliver@neukum.org> <20071208102143.GA7195@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071208102143.GA7195@elf.ucw.cz> 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 Pavel Machek wrote: > 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. > > Surely it is possible to code a tree walker that is not a recursive function? I believe you can use a simple loop and the heap to store state that would otherwise be stored on the stack in a recursive function.