lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6 v2] PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and system sleep (v2)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:28:52AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:00:39PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:06:02PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > > >> > So, what specific git commits do you want to see in the 3.0-stable
> > > >> > tree, and in what order should they be applied in?
> > > >>
> > > >> So to my untrained eye it looks like it should be applied like this (top to
> > > >> bottom) using the reverse commit order from the mainline kernel:
> > > >>
> > > >> e529192 PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2)
> > > >> 455716e PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep
> > > >> 1e2ef05 PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and system sleep (v2)
> > > >> f3393b6 PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended()
> > > >>
> > > >> So (2) documents the problem, (3) fixes it, whereas (1) and (4) makes
> > > >> it possible
> > > >> to write proper _noirq() code that does not race, IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > But, after this, it's just adding new infrastructure that drivers will
> > > > then be able to use. As I'm not adding new drivers to 3.0, there will
> > > > not be any users of this code, so why add it in the first place? It
> > > > doesn't look like this follows the rules of the stable kernel tree at
> > > > all, does it?
> > >
> > > We'll have to get some feedback from Rafael, but the way I percieved
> > > it, the patch (2) fixes a very real race, then fixing that makes it
> > > necessary for drivers using runtime_pm to do things differently to
> > > be on the safe side. But none were really fixed when first merging
> > > it.
> > >
> > > So on second thought you probably only want patch (2)
> > > "PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and system sleep (v2)"
> > > for stable.
> >
> > Ok, Rafael, any objection to me applying just this one?
>
> Well, I'd prefer not to unless there are reports confirming user problems
> being fixed specifically by this patch. It changes the PM core's behavior
> quite significantly and I'm a little afraid of possible regressions that may
> result from it.

Ok, good reason to not apply it, consider it dropped :)

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-03 02:35    [W:0.054 / U:7.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site