[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111205175954.GH627@google.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:59:54 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, pavel@....cz, len.brown@...el.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, rdunlap@...otime.net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of
[un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex)
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:26:22PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Yes, that sounds good. No need for giving unnecessary choices :-)
> But I had worded the documentation that way with the intention of
> explaining why calling mutex_lock() over pm_mutex can be disastrous (which
> I mentioned in the commit message as one of the goals of the patch).
> I didn't mean it to give the user 2 choices and say please use
> [un]lock_system_sleep() preferably.
>
> Although, we have to notice that unless somebody is acquainted with
> these APIs, the first instinct would probably be to directly use
> mutex_lock(), until they look up the documentation (hopefully).
> So, IMHO, it would do good to keep the explanation in the docs as
> it is, in this patch. What do you think?
Yeah, sounds good to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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