[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1206586358.6926.68.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:52:38 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and
hibernation callbacks (rev. 4)
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:23 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore.
> > >
> > > I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate.
> >
> > Well, what does it bring you ? Why can't it be one struct ? To save
> > space in the data area ?
>
> Mostly, but not only that.
>
> There are users of 'struct pm_ops' that aren't even supposed to define the
> _noirq callbacks (device types and device classes), so I thought it would be
> better to introduce a separate _noirq struct after all.
Make sense... USB has no use of noirq for example.
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists