[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091007192507.2784266a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 19:25:07 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] usb_serial: Kill port mutex
> > It would probably be cleaner if they could lock against each other
>
> What you mean isn't clear. After all, open sometimes has to call
> resume. So how could resume lock against open?
Probably it needs a counting lock as the code is currently structured -
which is a bit ugly. What paths do we end up going through the device
open method into resume in the same thread ?
> Does this imply that unthrottle should try to autoresume? There does
> appear to be a potential race between unthrottle and autosuspend.
The more I look at it the more it implies to me that the ldiscs doing
this should instead be taught some better manners instead. The real nasty
is that a driver might not have initialised the locking it needs do that
exclusion until open occurs. I think n_tty is probably the only offender
and if so I'd rather fix that and make it a rule that you don't do that,
trying to fix it other ways is going to be more horrible I imagine.
--
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