[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130305180542.GA12738@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 19:05:42 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, ibm-acpi@....eng.br,
ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thinkpad-acpi: fix potential suspend blocking issue
On 03/05, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On 03/05, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> >>
> >> @@ -2462,13 +2462,13 @@ static int hotkey_kthread(void *data)
> >> unsigned int poll_freq;
> >> bool was_frozen;
> >>
> >> + set_freezable();
> >> +
> >> mutex_lock(&hotkey_thread_mutex);
> >>
> >> if (tpacpi_lifecycle == TPACPI_LIFE_EXITING)
> >> goto exit;
> >>
> >> - set_freezable();
> >> -
> >
> > I don't understand this code... but don't we have the same problem
> > with kthread_freezable_should_stop() below? It can call __refrigerator()
> > too under the same lock.
> >
>
> I don't think the lock is held at that point. There is an unlock right
> before entering the while loop and at the bottom of the loop.
Hmm... Afaics this is another lock, hotkey_thread_data_mutex. But
hotkey_thread_mutex is still held.
Oleg.
--
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