On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Still, shouldn't we fail the removal of the device apart from giving the > > warning? > > Actually, having thought about it a bit more, I don't see the point in > preventing the removal of the device from the list in device_pm_remove() if > we allow all of the operations in device_del() preceding it to be performed. That's not the issue. We _don't_ allow all of the operations in device_del() preceding the call to device_pm_remove(). In particular, the call to the device's driver's remove method will deadlock because device_release_driver() always has to acquire dev->sem. > Shouldn't we just take pm_sleep_rwsem in device_del() upfront and block on that > if locked? No -- the whole idea here is to print an error message in the system log if a driver's resume method tries to call device_del(). Deadlock is unavoidable in this case, but at least we'll know which driver is guilty. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
