On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Linus Walleij wrote: > 2011/6/29 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > > One of the roles of the PM core is to prevent different PM callbacks > > executed for the same device object from racing with each other. > > Unfortunately, after commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > > (PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend) > > runtime PM callbacks may be executed concurrently with system > > suspend/resume callbacks for the same device. > (...) > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > A quick question: is there some specific reason why this patch should > not go into the 3.0.y stable releases? > > We are trying to produce > a runtime PM system of product quality based on 3.0.y and we've > already had to backport this patch ourselves to get things stable. > > We have also backported: > PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2) > PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep > PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended() > > And now it seems to be sufficient to get this thing going. Well, it isn't a simple fix and it changes the code's behavior quite significantly, so I thought it might not be a good idea to risk problems with -stable because of it. Perhaps let's see how it works out in 3.1 and backport it later if there are no problem reports related to it? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
