On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:09:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [cut] > > > > > I can do the old code exactly, but afaict the non-NULL parent just > > > > takes care of the parent bus locking for us, instead of hand-rolling > > > > it in the caller. But if I missed something, I can easily undo that > > > > part. > > > > > > It is different if device links are present, but I'm not worried about > > > that case honestly. :-) > > > > What would change with device links? We have some cleanup plans to > > remove our usage for early/late s/r hooks with a device link, to make > > sure i915 resumes before snd_hda_intel. Digging more into the code I > > only see the temporary dropping of the parent's device_lock, but I > > have no idea what that even implies ... > > That's just it (which is why I said I was not worried). > > Running device_links_unbind_consumers() with the parent lock held may > deadlock if another child of the same parent also is a consumer of the > current device (which really is a corner case), but the current code > has this problem - it goes away with your change. > > But dev->bus->need_parent_lock checks are missing in there AFAICS, let > me cut a patch to fix that. With your patch before this one, are you ok with mine? Or want me to respin with a different flavour? btw threading somehow broke apart, Chris Wilson r-b stamped this one on intel-gfx: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/267220/ Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
