On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 13:40:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Montag 24 März 2008 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > > > > > + * after @prepare() returns. If @prepare() detects a situation it cannot > > > > + * handle (e.g. registration of a child already in progress), it may return > > > > + * -EAGAIN, so that the PM core can execute it once again (e.g. after the > > > > + * new child has been registered) to recover from the race condition. This > > > > + * method is executed for all kinds of suspend transitions and is followed > > > > + * by one of the suspend callbacks: @suspend(), @freeze(), or @poweroff(). > > > > > > This could be understood so that disconnect() cannot be called. > > > > At what time exactly? > > I see no locking that would would prevent disconnect() in the window between > prepare() and suspend()/... There is no such locking. It's perfectly legal for a device to be unregistered between prepare() and suspend(). I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a general comment explaining that a device can be unregistered at any time except when one of its methods is running. 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
