On Thursday, January 19, 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:02:58AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 18, 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:15:59PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: [...] > > Yes, you can, but then I'd say it's not necessary for user space to > > be able to carry that out in a tight loop. So, it seems, alternatively, > > we could make that loop a bit less tight, e.g. by adding an arbitrary > > sleep to the user space interface for the "disable" case. > > Good point, that would work just as well and be simpler. Thanks for the confirmation! :-) By the way, I wonder, would it help to add synchronize_rcu() to wakeup_source_add() too? Then, even if device_wakeup_enable() and device_wakeup_disable() are executed in a tight loop for the same device, the list_add/list_del operations will always happen in different RCU cycles (or at least it seems so). Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
