Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761718AbXKHQri (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:47:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760786AbXKHQra (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:47:30 -0500 Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:38521 "EHLO saeurebad.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760289AbXKHQr3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:47:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 17:46:06 +0100 From: Johannes Weiner To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Johannes Weiner , "Michael (rabenkind) Brandstetter" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc1: OOPS at acpi_battery_update Message-ID: <20071108164606.GB12231@cataract> Mail-Followup-To: Alexey Starikovskiy , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Johannes Weiner , "Michael (rabenkind) Brandstetter" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <1193652664.22149.4.camel@localhost> <200711050118.34610.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071108155344.GA12231@cataract> <200711081717.00421.rjw@sisk.pl> <47333549.90505@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47333549.90505@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1439 Lines: 42 Hi, On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:11:53PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call > >>acpi_battery_update() at all? > > > >Alex? > If someone wants to read stale values, he could comment out > acpi_battery_update. Please help me to understand: When the battery is plugged in, the acpi_battery_notify() is called, which in turn calls acpi_battery_update(). The latter ensures that the sysfs files are created if not yet present. When the battery is removed, acpi_battery_notify is called, which in turn calls acpi_battery_update(). The latter ensures that the sysfs files are removed if present. During runtime - as far as I understood - no sysfs files have to be created/removed but the saved battery state info becomes stale. So, would it be enough to call acpi_battery_get_state() in acpi_battery_get_property() instead of acpi_battery_update()? If acpi_battery_get_state() does what I think it does, this would ensure that the battery state is reread and updated when acpi_battery_get_property() is called. Hit me. Hannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/