lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: klists and struct device semaphores

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, David Brownell wrote:

    > On Monday 28 March 2005 9:44 am, Patrick Mochel wrote:
    >
    > > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected,
    > > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it
    > > to the PM core?
    >
    > Erm, why is there a distinction between "adding device" and "adding it
    > to the PM core"? That's a conceptual problem right there. There
    > should be no distinctio. (But it does make eminent sense to be able
    > to add a device without necessarily binding it to a driver, since
    > the "unbound driver" state is all over the place.)

    Don't get too excited; there is no distinction.

    He seemed to imply that it would be useful for interfaces to be added
    without having the possibility of being suspended until all the interfaces
    of a device were added. I'm simply trying to understand what he thinks is
    necessary.


    Pat

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean