[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906080005.23304.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 00:05:23 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
Am Sonntag, 7. Juni 2009 23:46:59 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> It may be necessary to resume a device synchronously, but I'm still
> thinking how to implement that.
This will absolutely be the default. You resume a device because you want
it to do something now. It seems to me that you making your problem worse
by using a spinlock as a lock. A mutex would make it easier.
Regards
Oliver
--
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