Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759533AbYABQse (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:48:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755830AbYABQsZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:48:25 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:42672 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755258AbYABQsY (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:48:24 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device() Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:50:15 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: pm list , ACPI Devel Maling List , Andrew Morton , Len Brown , LKML , Pavel Machek , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801021750.16359.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2000 Lines: 41 On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or > > > hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in that > > > cases. For this reason, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism allowing one > > > to ask the PM core to remove a device object corresponding to a suspended > > > device on one's behalf. > > > > > > Define function destroy_suspended_device() that will schedule the removal of > > > a device object corresponding to a suspended device by the PM core during the > > > subsequent resume. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Sorry, a small fix is needed for this patch. Namely, dpm_sysfs_remove(dev) > > should not be called by device_pm_schedule_removal(), because it will be called > > anyway from device_pm_remove() when the device object is finally unregistered > > (we're talking here about unlikely error paths only, but still). > > The situation is a little confusing, because the source files under > drivers/base/power are maintained in Greg's tree and he already has > gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch > installed. That patch conflicts with this one. > > One of the these two patches will have to be rewritten to apply on top > of the other. Which do you think should be changed? Well, from the bisectability point of view, it would be better to adjust gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch and let the $subject patch series go first, if you don't mind. Rafael -- 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/