Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][Alternative][RFC] PM / Runtime: Introduce driver runtime PM work routine | Date | Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:06:37 +0200 |
| |
On Monday, August 13, 2012, Alan Stern wrote: > 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.)
OK
I need to prepare a new patch now, but first I'll send a couple of (minor) fixes for the core runtime PM code.
Thanks, Rafael
| |