From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755021Ab1CKUpt (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:45:49 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:52333 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754357Ab1CKUpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:45:46 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Greg KH Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Convert several sysdev users to using struct syscore_ops Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:45:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.38-rc8+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: LKML , Len Brown , Kay Sievers , Jesse Barnes , Linux PM mailing list , "H. Peter Anvin" , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de References: <201103100131.58206.rjw@sisk.pl> <201103112129.24876.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110311203305.GA21045@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110311203305.GA21045@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103112145.45695.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, March 11, 2011, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:29:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I thought about two different possible ways forward: > > > > (1) Push [1/2] and the patches converting things that x86 depends on first, > > followed perhaps by a patch introducing something like > > CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSDEV_OPS that would simply disable > > sysdev_{suspend|resume|shutdown}() (x86 would set it). The other arches > > might then be converted over time. > > > > (2) Prepare patches converting everything that can be converted in the tree > > and push them all in one shot. > > > > The advantage of (1) is that we can start making changes RSN and the > > advantage of (2) seems to be that we may avoid some potential suspend/resume > > ordering issues on non-x86 architectures that may arise in principle if some > > subsystems are converted to using struct syscore_ops while the others are > > not (syscore_suspend() is executed after sysdev_suspend(), so if we move > > something from the latter to the former, it may end up being executed after > > things that it was executed before previously). > > > > Please let me know what your opinion is. > > Hm, I would prefer (1) as that lets us get this moving sooner, and "flag > days" are never good to have. If there are problems that arise because > of it, as you have noted, it will be simple just to convert the parts > that were using the "old" methods to the new ones to fix the issue, > right? Yes, I agree. Thanks, Rafael