On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:02:40AM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:16:34PM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > > ... > >> >> So you can read this value without any type of synchronization > >> >> with the power_supply_core > >> >> and sysfs implementation? > > ... > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2013-January/025206.html > >> > >> I found and equivalent scenario that I was trying to said > > > > That's a good question, actually. Even though in Pali's case the notifier > > is atomic (so that we are pretty confident that the object won't be > > unregistered), there is still a possiblity of a dead lock, for example. So > > So if the get_property is a sleeping function it will be a deadlock. Right? All kind of bad things might happen, yes. But before that I would expect a bunch of warnings from might_sleep() stuff. I would recommend to test the patches using preempt/smp kernels + various DEBUG_ kernel options set. Thanks, Anton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
