[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0802242119500.31164-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:21:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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 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.
But if you really twist my arm, I'll go along with Pavel's suggestion.
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