On Sunday, 23 of March 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > [--snip--] > > No, you have missed the entire point. The problem doesn't exist in the > current code; it exists only if we switch over to using a single list. > Routines like dpm_suspend() won't be able to use list_for_each_entry() > to traverse the list because entries may be removed by other threads > during the traversal. Even list_for_each_entry_safe() won't work > correctly without careful attention to details. Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't it help that we traverse the list under dpm_list_mtx? Anyone who removes an entry is required to take dpm_list_mtx that we're holding while the list is traversed except when the callbacks are invoked. The only problem I see is when the device currently being handled is removed from the list by a concurrent thread. Is that you were referring to? 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
