[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801052213.39891.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:13:38 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend
On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Another thing to watch out for: Just in case somebody ends up calling
> > > destroy_suspended_device(dev) from within dev's own resume method, you
> > > should interchange the resume_device() and the list_move_tail()
> > > calls in dpm_resume().
> >
> > However, if we unregister them all at once after releasing pm_sleep_rwsem,
> > that shouldn't be necessary, right?
>
> It's still necessary, because destroy_suspended_device() still has to
> move the device from one list to another. You don't want it to end up
> on the dpm_locked list.
Hmm. That means we'd have to do the same thing in dpm_power_up() in case
someone calls destroy_suspended_device() from resume_device_early(dev).
Still, even doing that is not enough, since someone can call
destroy_suspended_device() from a .suspend() routine and then the device
will end up on a wrong list just as well.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists