linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] wacom + runtime PM = AA deadlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:13:19 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>,
	pingc@...om.com, "linux-pm" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] wacom + runtime PM = AA deadlock

Am Montag, 13. September 2010, 22:02:16 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > Is there any point in resuming the device during close() just in order
> > > to kill the interrupt URB?  It seems counterproductive -- if the device 
> > > had been suspended then there wouldn't be any interrupt URB to kill in 
> > > the first place.
> > 
> > Suppose the device does not support remote wakeup. It would never
> > be autosuspended while it is open, but simply resetting the flag
> > would never reach the PM layer.
> 
> Whoops, that's right.  I didn't see the assignment to 
> needs_remote_wakeup.

Should I have used usb_autopm_get_interface_no_resume()?

	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/