[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Another thing to watch out for: Just in case somebody ends up calling
> > > > destroy_suspended_device(dev) from within dev's own resume method, you
> > > > should interchange the resume_device() and the list_move_tail()
> > > > calls in dpm_resume().
> > >
> > > However, if we unregister them all at once after releasing pm_sleep_rwsem,
> > > that shouldn't be necessary, right?
> >
> > It's still necessary, because destroy_suspended_device() still has to
> > move the device from one list to another. You don't want it to end up
> > on the dpm_locked list.
> Hmm. That means we'd have to do the same thing in dpm_power_up() in case
> someone calls destroy_suspended_device() from resume_device_early(dev).


> Still, even doing that is not enough, since someone can call
> destroy_suspended_device() from a .suspend() routine and then the device
> will end up on a wrong list just as well.

That should never happen. The whole idea of destroy_suspended_device()
is that the device couldn't be resumed and in fact should be
unregistered because it is no longer working or no longer present. A
suspend routine won't detect this sort of thing since it doesn't try to
resume the device.

But it wouldn't hurt to mention in the kerneldoc that
destroy_suspended_device() is meant to be called only during a system

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-05 22:43    [W:0.037 / U:9.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site