[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801062324.15960.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:24:14 +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 Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > Still, shouldn't we fail the removal of the device apart from giving the
> > warning?
>
> We can't. device_del() can't fail -- it returns void. Besides, how
> can a driver hope to deal with an unregistration failure?
Well, right.
Still, our present approach doesn't seem to be correct overall. For example,
I think we should prevent a suspend from happening while a device is being
removed.
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