On Wednesday, November 03, 2010, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > There's apparently an ordering problem with dpm_list_mtx and > > socket->skt_mutex. Lockdep details appended. > > > > Dominik, Rafael? What's the proper locking order here, and > > how do we fix this? > > Thanks for noting this; let's see: > > - We add a PCMCIA device holding skt_mutex, therefore we have the ordering > (1) skt_mutex -> (2) dpm_list_mtx > > - If we're suspending, dpm_list_mtx is held, but we need to acquire > skt_mutex as we modify some data being protected by skt_mutex > (1) dpm_list_mtx -> (2) skt_mutex > > Rafael, any idea on how to solve this? How do other subsystems handle such > an issue? Do they call device_add() with no locks held at all? They usually do from what I can tell. Also only a few of them implement the ->suspend_noirq() callback, which is the one executed under dpm_list_mtx. What exactly is protected by skt_mutex ? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
