[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100614164948.3b39d550@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:49:48 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
markgross@...gnar.org, linville@...driver.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH v4] pm_qos: make update_request non blocking
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:44:06 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:33 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:25:52 -0500
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, pm_qos_remove now needs a flush_scheduled work since you don't
> > > want to return until the list is clear (since the next action may be to
> > > free the object).
> >
> > The work-items are allocated in the pm_qos objects (which get never
> > freed), so we should be fine there.
>
> That's not a safe assumption. Once we get into drivers, timers and cpu
> ilde states, I can see these things being in modules.
>
> Regardless, it's bad programming practise to be using something after
> the final remove is called, it certainly violates the principle of least
> surprise and would usually eventually cause problems.
>
> James
>
I absolutely defer to you in this question. But there is no
pm_qos_remove at the moment, as far as I see? Should I add one? When
and how would it be called?
Maybe I'm not understanding you right at the moment.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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