lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][Alternative][RFC] PM / Runtime: Introduce driver runtime PM work routine
Date
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-14 00:42    [W:0.047 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site