[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0801101202470.2727-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:04:06 -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 Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > Also, the kerneldoc for destroy_suspended_device() should contain an
> > > > > > extra paragraph warning that the routine should never be called except
> > > > > > within the scope of a system sleep transition. In practice this means
> > > > > > it has to be directly or indirectly invoked by a suspend or resume
> > > > > > method.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or by a CPU hotplug notifier (that will be the majority of cases, IMO).
> > > >
> > > > In your patch the call is made in response to a CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN
> > > > notification. Isn't it true that this notification is issued only as
> > > > part of a system sleep transition?
> > >
> > > Yes, it is.
> >
> > So it counts as being indirectly invoked by a resume method.
>
> Rather, by the resume core. Technically, it's invoked by
> enable_nonboot_cpus(), which is not a resume method literally.
Okay, then the routine should only be called directly or indirectly
from a suspend or resume method or from the suspend or resume core.
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