[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsgmHh7iLhESPXiTkoW9SL4H8E92-7bARpDxNX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:15:17 -0700
From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To: "Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"felipe.balbi@...ia.com" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
2010/6/1 Gross, Mark <mark.gross@...el.com>:
...
>>4. It would be useful to change pm_qos_add_request to not allocate
>>anything so can add constraints from init functions that currently
>>cannot fail.
> [mtg: ] I'm not sure how to do this but I agree it would be good. I guess we could have a block of pm_qos requests pre-allocated statically and re-use them. In practice there will not be more than a handful of requests ever. Dynamic allocation does seem like a bit of a waste.
The calling code will have to store a pointer to your structure
anyway, you may as well have them provide the whole structure.
--
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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