From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753313AbXGXITy (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:19:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754155AbXGXITl (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:19:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-out001.kontent.com ([81.88.40.215]:34241 "EHLO smtp-out.kontent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753554AbXGXITk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:19:40 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: Towards eliminating the freezer Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:21:35 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: LKML , linux-pm References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707241021.35573.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern: > Now here's an idea which might work.  Can we require every caller of > device_add() to hold some existing device's semaphore?  Normally it > would be the semaphore of the new device's parent, but it could be a > higher ancestor.  There even could be a single "root" semaphore for > drivers registering a top-level device with no parent. What prevents us from having a device addition semaphore? Adding device is not critical to performance, is it? Regards Oliver