On Saturday 22 August 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > + * The driver of the device won't receive interrupts while this function is
> > > > + * being executed.
> > > > */
> > > > @@ -696,13 +746,19 @@ int dpm_suspend_noirq(pm_message_t state
> > > > suspend_device_irqs();
> > > > mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > > > list_for_each_entry_reverse(dev, &dpm_list, power.entry) {
> > > > + dev->power.status = DPM_OFF_IRQ;
> > > > error = device_suspend_noirq(dev, state);
> > > > if (error) {
> > > > pm_dev_err(dev, state, " late", error);
> > > > + dev->power.status = DPM_OFF;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (async_error) {
> > > > + error = async_error;
> > > > break;
> > >
> > > async_error is 'interesting'. How does locking work in noirq case?
> >
> > It's racy, a little bit. :-)
> >
> > If two async drivers return errors exactly at the same time, one of them will
> > win the race, but it doesn't really matter which one wins as long as
> > async_error is different from zero as a result. And it will be, since it's
> > an 'int' and the integrity of these is guaranteed.
>
> Rather than relying on atomicity of 'int' (where half of kernel
> hackers says it is and second half says it is not), can we just use
> atomic_t? It compiles to same code on sane architectures, and serves
> as documentation/warning...
I used atomic_t for that in the updated patches, already sent a few days ago.
Please refer to that code.
Thanks,
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
