[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0801061729080.19222-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:31:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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 Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
We could, however I don't think it's dangerous to allow it. The two
problems to avoid are (1) messing up the PM device list pointers, and
(2) calling a driver's suspend/resume methods while its remove method
is running. (1) is handled by the pm_list_mutex and (2) is handled by
locking dev->sem.
Alan Stern
--
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