Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758687AbYAFWbl (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:31:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755597AbYAFWbd (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:31:33 -0500 Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:2432 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755523AbYAFWbc (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:31:32 -0500 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:31:32 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , Len Brown , Ingo Molnar , ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML , pm list Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Acquire device locks on suspend In-Reply-To: <200801062324.15960.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 771 Lines: 19 On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. We could, however I don't think it's dangerous to allow it. The two problems to avoid are (1) messing up the PM device list pointers, and (2) calling a driver's suspend/resume methods while its remove method is running. (1) is handled by the pm_list_mutex and (2) is handled by locking dev->sem. Alan Stern -- 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/