[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:0.219 / U:8.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site