[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002032334.37198.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:34:37 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: disable nonboot cpus before suspending devices
On Wednesday 03 February 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:44:23 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > +static inline gfp_t clear_gfp_allowed_mask(gfp_t mask)
> > +{
> > + gfp_t ret = gfp_allowed_mask;
> > + gfp_allowed_mask &= ~mask;
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> Fair enuf.
>
> Of course, this is all horridly racy/buggy without locking. Would I be
> correct in hoping that all the callers happen when the system is in
> everyone-is-frozen mode?
As far as I can tell, gfp_allowed_mask is only touched during init apart from
this.
> Perhaps we should add some documentation (or even an assertion) to
> prevent someone from using these interfaces from within normal code.
I thought about that, but didn't invent anything smart enough.
Well, maybe except for a comment like "this must be called with pm_mutex held",
because that's the only case when it would be really safe.
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