On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Lin Ming wrote:
>
>> Let's consider below code.
>>
>> @@ -587,6 +591,11 @@ void __elv_add_request(struct request_queue *q,
>> struct request *rq, int where)
>> {
>> trace_block_rq_insert(q, rq);
>>
>> + if (!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_PM))
>> + if (q->nr_pending++ == 0 && (q->rpm_status == RPM_SUSPENDED ||
>> + q->rpm_status == RPM_SUSPENDING) && q->dev)
>> + pm_request_resume(q->dev);
>> +
>> rq->q = q;
>>
>> if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_SOFTBARRIER) {
>>
>> Block layer reads runtime status and pm core writes this status.
>> PM core uses dev->power.lock to protect this status.
>>
>> I was thinking will it have problem if block layer does not acquire
>> dev->power.lock?
>> From your explanation below, it seems does not have problem.
>
> I don't think it's a problem, because all you're doing is reading
> dev->power.rpm_status -- you're not writing it.
>
> On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with keeping your own
> local copy of rpm_status. You could think of it as being the queue's
> status as opposed to the device's status. (Also, some people might
> argue that dev->power.rpm_status is supposed to be private to the
> runtime PM core and shouldn't be used by other code.)
Agree.
So I'd like to keep local copy of rpm_status.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
