Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:43:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Mochel <mochel@digitalimplant.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
       Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: klists and struct device semaphores
In-Reply-To: <200503281016.15374.david-b@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0503281041150.29772-100000@monsoon.he.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0503261152160.13772-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.50.0503280856210.28120-100000@monsoon.he.net>
 <200503281016.15374.david-b@pacbell.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1142
Lines: 30


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/