[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910081337.10275.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:37:09 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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
Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2009 19:23:59 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > We can take the port->mutex lock in the throttle/unthrottle methods as
> > far as I can see - there are no obvious problem cases. We do call
> > ->throttle and ->unthrottle from the ldisc open but this occurs outside
> > of any call to the tty driver open/close method so I don't see any
> > deadlock.
> >
> > It adds an ordering of termios lock before port mutex when taking both
> > but that's not a problem and really implicit in the structure of the code
> > anyway.
>
> Does this imply that unthrottle should try to autoresume? There does
> appear to be a potential race between unthrottle and autosuspend.
The race exists. But I don't think unthrottle should autoresume.
It would be better to just set a flag and defer this to resume.
If the device supports remote wakeup there'll be no need to autoresume,
if not, throttle/unthrottle are too rare to justify the complexity.
Regards
Oliver
--
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