On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Another thing to watch out for: Just in case somebody ends up calling > > > destroy_suspended_device(dev) from within dev's own resume method, you > > > should interchange the resume_device() and the list_move_tail() > > > calls in dpm_resume(). > > > > However, if we unregister them all at once after releasing pm_sleep_rwsem, > > that shouldn't be necessary, right? > > It's still necessary, because destroy_suspended_device() still has to > move the device from one list to another. You don't want it to end up > on the dpm_locked list. Hmm. That means we'd have to do the same thing in dpm_power_up() in case someone calls destroy_suspended_device() from resume_device_early(dev). Still, even doing that is not enough, since someone can call destroy_suspended_device() from a .suspend() routine and then the device will end up on a wrong list just as well. Greetings, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
