On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Pierre Ossman wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:00:51 -0500 (EST) > Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Maybe a better approach would be to leave the workqueue unfreezable, > > and keep cancel_delayed_work_sync() in mmc_suspend_host(). It would > > then be necessary to add a test to verify, if there is a card attached, > > that the card is indeed suspended. After all, it's possible that the > > cancel_delayed_work_sync() ended up waiting for a job already running > > on the workqueue to register a new card! (The same would be true even > > with flush_scheduled_work.) > > How would that be handled? I'd prefer a patch as I'm evidently not up to date with how to fondle the pm stuff properly. :) The easiest way to do this will be to wait until some planned updates are added to the PM core; then this will be a quick and simple change. That probably means waiting until after 2.6.25 is released, however. > > Also, as a bit of defensive programming, it might be a good idea to add > > a "suspended" flag to the mmc_host structure. If mmc_rescan() sees > > that the flag is set then it should return immediately. This would > > protect against host drivers that aren't careful to disable detect > > IRQs before calling mmc_suspend_host(). > > Indeed. I'll add that to my todo. That could go in along with the previous change. The PM update mentioned above involves adding a "suspended" flag to every struct device. With that available, this amounts to nothing more than an extra test added at the beginning of mmc_rescan(). Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
