[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912082248.14138.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:48:14 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: spinlock in completion_done() (was: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33))
On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > BTW, is there a good reason why completion_done() doesn't use spin_lock_irqsave
> > and spin_unlock_irqrestore? complete() and complete_all() use them, so why not
> > here?
>
> And likewise in try_wait_for_completion(). It looks like a bug. Maybe
> these routines were not intended to be called with interrupts disabled,
> but that requirement doesn't seem to be documented. And it isn't a
> natural requirement anyway.
OK, let's ask Ingo about that.
Ingo, is there any particular reason why completion_done() and
try_wait_for_completion() don't use spin_lock_irqsave() and
spin_unlock_irqrestore()?
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