Hello, On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:34:40PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> I haven't tested this solution yet. Let me know if this solution looks > >> good and I'll send it out as a patch after testing and analyzing some > >> corner cases, if any. > > I tested this, and it works great! I'll send the patch in some time. Awesome. > > * I think it would be better to remove direct access to pm_mutex and > > use [un]lock_system_sleep() universally. I don't think hinging it > > on CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS buys us anything. > > > > Which direct access to pm_mutex are you referring to? > Other than suspend/hibernation call paths, I think mem-hotplug is the only > subsystem trying to access pm_mutex. I haven't checked thoroughly though. > > But yes, using lock_system_sleep() for mutually excluding some code path > from suspend/hibernation is good, and that is one reason why I wanted > to fix this API ASAP. But as long as memory hotplug is the only direct user > of pm_mutex, is it justified to remove the CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS > restriction and make it generic? I don't know... > > Or, are you saying that we should use these APIs even in suspend/hibernate > call paths? That's not such a bad idea either... Yeap, all. It's just confusing to have two different types of access to a single lock and I don't believe CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS is a meaningful optimization in this case. Thank you. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>