linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] pm: prevent suspend until power supply events are processed

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:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:09:58 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Arve Hjonnevag <arve@...roid.com>,
	Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pm: prevent suspend until power supply events are processed

Don't have Zoran's new email address, but probably other might have
answers to my queries.

I have just started with the power-supply framework a day or two back
and so my understanding might not be good enough :)

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Zoran Markovic
<zoran.markovic@...aro.org> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c b/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c
> index 3b2d5df..e68d598 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/power_supply_core.c
> @@ -67,23 +67,41 @@ static int __power_supply_changed_work(struct device *dev, void *data)
>
>  static void power_supply_changed_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> +       unsigned long flags;
>         struct power_supply *psy = container_of(work, struct power_supply,
>                                                 changed_work);
>
>         dev_dbg(psy->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
>
> -       class_for_each_device(power_supply_class, NULL, psy,
> -                             __power_supply_changed_work);
> -
> -       power_supply_update_leds(psy);
> -
> -       kobject_uevent(&psy->dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&psy->changed_lock, flags);
> +       if (psy->changed) {

Can this be false here? We have reached here as the work was
scheduled after setting it to true..

Maybe a WARN_ON(psy->changed) is more sensible here ?

> +               psy->changed = false;
> +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&psy->changed_lock, flags);
> +               class_for_each_device(power_supply_class, NULL, psy,
> +                                     __power_supply_changed_work);
> +               power_supply_update_leds(psy);
> +               kobject_uevent(&psy->dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
> +               spin_lock_irqsave(&psy->changed_lock, flags);
> +       }
> +       /* dependent power supplies (e.g. battery) may have changed
> +        * state as a result of this event, so poll again and hold
> +        * the wakeup_source until all events are processed.
> +        */
> +       if (!psy->changed)
> +               pm_relax(psy->dev);

I got a bit confused here. Does the above comment say this:

The supplies dependent on 'psy' may change states and that *may*
change the state of 'psy' again? And so psy->changed is set to true
again?
--
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/