Re: Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> >> I don't see anything wrong with it.  All that will happen is that the
> >> removal will start before the suspend and finish after the resume.
> >
> > In that case, we'll attempt to call the device's .suspend() and .resume()
> > routines, but we shouldn't do that, IMHO.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with that since the driver must be prepared to
> handle that even in the regular case, it's the only thing you can
> guarantee: no more method calls after removal finishes. Am I totally
> misunderstanding things?

Well, we are towards the end of device removal at this point, having called
bus_remove_device(dev) for example, but still we've got it on dpm_active ...

This may not be technically wrong (ie. we should be able to recover from
that), but it seems conceptually wrong and with pm_sleep_rwsem in place it
can be avoided.

Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux