[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)
    On Sunday 20 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >
    > > OK, so this means we can just forget about suspending/resuming i8042
    > > asynchronously, which is a pity, because that gave us some real suspend
    > > speedup on my test systems.
    > No. What it means is that you shouldn't try to come up with these idiotic
    > scenarios just trying to make trouble for yourself,

    I haven't. I've just asked Dmitry for his opinion and got it. The fact that
    you don't like it doesn't mean it's actually "idiotic".

    > and using it as an excuse for crap.

    I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but whatever.

    > I suggest you try to treat the i8042 controller async, and see if it is
    > problematic.

    I already have and I don't see problems with it, but quite obviously I can't
    test all possible configurations out there.

    > If it isn't, don't do that then. But we actually have no real
    > reason to believe that it would be problematic, at least on a PC where the
    > actual logic is on the SB (presumably behind the LPC controller).
    > Why would it be?

    The embedded controller may depend on it.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-20 00:55    [W:0.025 / U:28.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site