> > It would probably be cleaner if they could lock against each other > > What you mean isn't clear. After all, open sometimes has to call > resume. So how could resume lock against open? Probably it needs a counting lock as the code is currently structured - which is a bit ugly. What paths do we end up going through the device open method into resume in the same thread ? > Does this imply that unthrottle should try to autoresume? There does > appear to be a potential race between unthrottle and autosuspend. The more I look at it the more it implies to me that the ldiscs doing this should instead be taught some better manners instead. The real nasty is that a driver might not have initialised the locking it needs do that exclusion until open occurs. I think n_tty is probably the only offender and if so I'd rather fix that and make it a rule that you don't do that, trying to fix it other ways is going to be more horrible I imagine. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
