[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802251241.26216.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:41:25 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 10030] Suspend doesn't work when SD card is inserted
On Monday, 25 of February 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Very subtly wrong ;-).
> > >
> > > imagine suspending_task == 0xabcdef01. Now task "R" with current ==
> > > 0xabcd0000 reads suspending_task while the other cpu is writing to it,
> > > and sees 0xabcd0000 (0xef01 was not yet written) -- and mistakenly
> > > believes that "R" == suspending_task.
> > >
> > > I agree it is very unlikely, and it will not happen on i386. But what
> > > about just using atomic_t suspending_task, and store current->pid into
> > > it?
> >
> > I'd rather use a lock, frankly. For example, we can require the readers to
> > take pm_sleep_rwsem for reading in order to access that.
>
> That certainly won't work. Imagine what would happen when the reader
> _was_ the suspending task.
Yeah, I've already realized it was a stupid idea. :-)
> But if you really twist my arm, I'll go along with Pavel's suggestion.
So can you do that, pretty please?
Thanks,
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