On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > The difference is, if you use _put_sync(), you need to wait the extra 10 ms > for local_pci_probe() to return (if the parent is actually suspended), > although you might not need to wait for it if you used _put(), right? Yes, that's the difference. But who waits for local_pci_probe() to return? :-) > Which, to me, means that using _put_sync() may not be always better. > It probably doesn't matter a lot, but then the workqueue overhead shouldn't > matter a lot either. It's that in the end, the extra overhead is pretty small. For me there's also an issue of style: If you do a synchronous get then it looks odd not to do a synchronous put. My feeling has always been that the async routines are for use in non-process contexts, where the sync routines can't be used. Using them just to return a little more quickly is a foreign idea. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
