[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0801071207090.2748-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:23:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
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 Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Please see the patch at: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/6/298 . It represents my
> current idea about how to do that.
It has some problems.
First, note that the list manipulations in dpm_suspend(),
device_power_down(), and so on aren't protected by dpm_list_mtx. So
your patch could corrupt the list pointers. Are you assuming that no
other threads can be running at this time?
Note also that device_pm_destroy_suspended() does up(&dev->sem), but it
doesn't know whether or not dev->sem was locked to begin with.
Do you want to rule out the possibility of a driver's suspend or remove
methods calling destroy_suspended_device() on its own device? With
your synchronous approach, this would mean that the suspend/resume
method would indirectly end up calling the remove method. This is
dangerous at best; with USB it would be a lockdep violation. With an
asynchronous approach, on the other hand, this wouldn't be a problem.
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