On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > > Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way? > > If you mean "eject", then it takes acpi_scan_lock and hotplug_dock_devices() > should always be run under acpi_scan_lock too. It isn't at the moment, > because write_undock() doesn't take acpi_scan_lock(), but this is an obvious > bug (so I'm going to send a patch to fix it in a while). > > With that bug fixed, the possible race between acpi_eject_store() and > hotplug_dock_devices() should be prevented from happening, so perhaps we're > worrying about something that cannot happen? So here's a question: What particular races are possible if we remove ds->hp_lock entirely without doing anything else just yet? I mean, how to *trigger* them from the start to the end and not how they can possibly happen but never do, because there's no way they can be actually triggered? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
