Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Hmm. > > I'm not 100% sure that patch is good. > > The reason? I think it's going to deadlock if an async caller ends up > wanting to load a module, because then the nestecd > "async_synchronize_full()" will basically want to wait for itself. > > So it's a good test-patch, and maybe no async caller ever loads a module, > but it makes me a bit nervous. > > But the fact that it fixes things for you at least means that the _reason_ > for the problem is know, and maybe there are alternative solutions. Arjan? I just got back from the LF summit and am catching up on mail; I'll take a look at the history. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
