From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/wireless: enable wiphy device to suspend/resume asynchronously Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:29:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1439796553.2451.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <55B9B3BA.6080406@linux.intel.com> <55D13D66.1050500@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: "Fu, Zhonghui" , Emmanuel Grumbach Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:43082 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775AbbHQH3W (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:29:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55D13D66.1050500@linux.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 09:48 +0800, Fu, Zhonghui wrote: > > The suspend/resume timing of wiphy device and related devices will be > ensured by their parent/child relationship. So, enabling wiphy device > to suspend/resume asynchronously does not change any dependency. It > can only take advantage of multicore and improve system > suspend/resume speed. > You're going to have to explain that to me, because I don't see that. All I see is that when looking at a device, if async is possible, it gets added to an async work, and if async is not possible then it gets done immediately. Even putting aside the question of whether or not async is ordered or not (I don't know), if the wiphy is async and the PCI (or other bus) device isn't, then it seems they could get handled out of order, no? Or is there some magic code somewhere that I'm missing that explicitly waits for the async of the parent/child relationship? johannes