On Wednesday, 9 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Appended is what I managed to put together today. > > > > It probably still has some problems, but I'm not seeing them right now (too > > tired). At least, it doesn't break my system. ;-) > > > > Please review. > > Okay, this seems to be better. I like the way the complicated tests > are all localized in power/main.c. > > In dpm_resume() you shouldn't need to use dpm_list_mtx at all, because > the list_move_tail() comes before the resume_device(). It's the same > as in dpm_power_up(). Still, device_pm_schedule_removal() can (in theory) be called concurrently with dpm_resume() by another thread and this might corrupt the list without the locking. > The same is true for dpm_suspend(). Once all the device have been > locked, there shouldn't be any other tasks accessing the dpm lists. > Hence there should be no need to protect the list. Except for against theoretical races with device_pm_schedule_removal(). > Which reminds me, the kerneldoc for device_pm_schedule_removal() is > inaccurate. The routine always just moves the device to dpm_destroy > list for later processing. Correct. > Also, the kerneldoc for destroy_suspended_device() should contain an > extra paragraph warning that the routine should never be called except > within the scope of a system sleep transition. In practice this means > it has to be directly or indirectly invoked by a suspend or resume > method. Or by a CPU hotplug notifier (that will be the majority of cases, IMO). > It looks good. Thanks for the review. I'll fix the comments and repost the patch from scratch for merging in a separate thread. Greetings, 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
