On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Alan Stern wrote: > > In device_pm_remove(): > > mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx); > if (dev == dpm_next) > dpm_next = to_device(dpm_iterate_forward ? > dev->power.entry.next : dev->power.entry.prev); > list_del_init(&dev->power.entry); > mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx); I'm really not seeing the point - it's much better to hardcode the ordering in the place you use it (where it is static and the compiler can generate bette code) than to do some dynamic choice that depends on some fake flag - especially a global one. Also, quite frankly, error handling needs to be separated out of the whole async patch, and needs to be thought about a lot more. And I would seriously argue that if you have any async suspends, then those async suspends are _not_ allowed to fail. At least not initially Having async failures and trying to fix them up is just a disaster. Which ones actually failed, and which ones were aborted before they even really got to their suspend routines? Which ones do you try to resume? IOW, it needs way more thought than what has clearly happened so far. And once more, I will refuse to merge anything that is complicated for no actual reason (where reason is "real life, and tested to make a big difference", not some hand-waving) Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
