On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > >> I don't see anything wrong with it. All that will happen is that the > > >> removal will start before the suspend and finish after the resume. > > > > > > In that case, we'll attempt to call the device's .suspend() and .resume() > > > routines, but we shouldn't do that, IMHO. > > > > I don't see anything wrong with that since the driver must be prepared to > > handle that even in the regular case, it's the only thing you can > > guarantee: no more method calls after removal finishes. Am I totally > > misunderstanding things? > > Well, we are towards the end of device removal at this point, having called > bus_remove_device(dev) for example, but still we've got it on dpm_active ... > > This may not be technically wrong (ie. we should be able to recover from > that), but it seems conceptually wrong and with pm_sleep_rwsem in place it > can be avoided. No, it can't, without major complications. Well, I think I'll just send a patch that should work most of the time ... Rafael - 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
