On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > My whole point was that by doing the whole "wait for children" in generic > code, you also made devices - such as PCI bridges - have to wait for > children, even though they don't need to, and don't want to. > > So I suggested an admittedly ugly hack to take care of it - rather than > some complex infrastructure. It doesn't feel like an ugly hack to me. It seems like exactly the Right Thing To Do: Make as many devices as possible use async suspend/resume. The only reason we don't make every device async is because we don't know whether it's safe. In the case of PCI bridges we _do_ know -- because they don't have any work to do outside of late_suspend/early_resume -- and so they _should_ be async. The same goes for devices that don't have suspend or resume methods. There remains a separate question: Should async devices also be forced to wait for their children? I don't see why not. For PCI bridges it won't make any significant difference. As long as the async code doesn't have to do anything, who cares when it runs? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
