On Saturday, November 20, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 19, 2010, Alan Stern wrote: ... > > > > I don't think Linus will object to this. What he doesn't like is when > > some code drops a lock, reacquires it, and then behaves as though the > > lock had been held all along. That's not the case here; rpm_idle() > > does not depend on any state remaining unchanged across the callback. > > One other thing I forgot to mention... If Linus doesn't like the way > the new code drops the spinlock and then reacquires it, then he must > also not like the existing code, which does the same thing. The only > difference lies in whether or not interrupts are re-enabled. The problem I have with this change is that switching interrupts off really is a part of the locking operation, so using spin_unlock() after spin_lock_irq...() is kind of like releasing the lock partially, which I don't think is valid (even if we're going to reacquire the lock immediately). Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
