Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758792AbYAFWWW (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:22:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758652AbYAFWWF (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:22:05 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:33785 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758189AbYAFWWC (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:22:02 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 23:24:14 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , Len Brown , Ingo Molnar , ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML , pm list 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: <200801062324.15960.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 808 Lines: 23 On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday, 6 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Still, shouldn't we fail the removal of the device apart from giving the > > warning? > > We can't. device_del() can't fail -- it returns void. Besides, how > can a driver hope to deal with an unregistration failure? Well, right. Still, our present approach doesn't seem to be correct overall. For example, I think we should prevent a suspend from happening while a device is being removed. 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/