Hi!
> > > > > Special thanks to Uli Luckas <u.luckas@xxxxxxx> for reviewing the previous
> > > > > versions of this patch and for very useful comments.
> > > > ...
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Eh, not sure this header is worth anything. Sometimes I'm lazy and
> > > > stop when I see first problem.
> > > >
> > > > > switch (action) {
> > > > > case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
> > > > > case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
> > > > > usermodehelper_disabled = 1;
> > > > > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > > > + retval = wait_event_timeout(running_helpers_waitq,
> > > > > + atomic_read(&running_helpers) == 0,
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure here? What happens when atomic variable changes between
> > > > the atomic_read and the function call?
> > >
> > > Er, this is a macro. :-)
> > >
> > > In fact we rely only on atomic_read(&running_helpers) being still zero after
> > > helper_finished() has woken us up, but I think that's acceptable.
> > >
> > > IOW, if the wait_event_timeout() returns with retval different from zero, this
> > > means that atomic_read(&running_helpers) returned zero at one point after
> > > we'd set usermodehelper_disabled, which is enough. OTOH, if it doesn't
> >
> > Ok, can you write short comment explaining that? /* We have set
> > usermodehelper_disabled, so any new usermode helpers are not a problem
> > */.
>
> OK, please have a look at the updated patch below.
ACK, and thanks for your patience.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
