linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] introduce device async actions mechanism

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200908122210.35591.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:10:35 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-acpi" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"dtor@...l.ru" <dtor@...l.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] introduce device async actions mechanism

On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > That looks quite complicated at first sight, but asynchronous resume with
> > completions can be done in a relatively simple patch.  I've got one, so
> > tomorow I'll post it for further discussion.
> 
> Okay.  I would think that managing the threads would account for most 
> of the complexity in either implementation, but I'll wait to see how 
> your approach works out.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Rafael
> > 
> > 
> > PS
> > Did you have a chance to look at rev. 15 of the runtime PM patch
> > (http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/40306/)?
> 
> Yes, sorry for not getting back to you.  It looks okay.
> 
> The one thing I'm not sure of is the pm_runtime_put_noidle calls in 
> driver_probe_device and __device_release_driver.  It seems that we 
> should always call pm_runtime_put regardless of whether the probe 
> succeeds or not.

Did you mean pm_runtime_put_sync()?

> For example, the USB stack is set up to suspend devices that don't have
> a driver (this is handled at the bus subsystem level).  But if probing
> failed, there wouldn't be any idle callback and so the suspend wouldn't
> take place.

OK, I'll make this change.

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/