[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1208131737400.27622-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][Alternative][RFC] PM / Runtime: Introduce driver runtime
PM work routine
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I guess the best we can say is that if you call pm_runtime_barrier()
> > after updating the dev_pm_ops method pointers then after the barrier
> > returns, the old method pointers will not be invoked and the old method
> > routines will not be running. So we need an equivalent guarantee with
> > regard to the pm_runtime_work pointer. (Yes, we could use a better
> > name for that pointer.)
> >
> > Which means the code in the patch isn't quite right, because it saves
> > the pm_runtime_work pointer before calling rpm_resume(). Maybe we
> > should avoid looking at the pointer until rpm_resume() returns.
>
> Yes, we can do that.
>
> Alternatively, we can set power.work_in_progress before calling
> rpm_resume(dev, 0) (i.e. regard the resume as a part of the work) to make
> the barrier wait for all of it to complete.
Yep, that would work. In fact, I did it that way in the proposed code
posted earlier in this thread. (But that was just on general
principles, not because I had this particular race in mind.)
Alan Stern
--
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