Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 19:25:07 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] usb_serial: Kill port mutex
Message-ID: <20091007192507.2784266a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0910071320120.3051-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
References: <20091007174611.439a7a5a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0910071320120.3051-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1199
Lines: 23

> > It would probably be cleaner if they could lock against each other
> 
> What you mean isn't clear.  After all, open sometimes has to call
> resume.  So how could resume lock against open?

Probably it needs a counting lock as the code is currently structured -
which is a bit ugly. What paths do we end up going through the device
open method into resume in the same thread ?

> Does this imply that unthrottle should try to autoresume?  There does 
> appear to be a potential race between unthrottle and autosuspend.

The more I look at it the more it implies to me that the ldiscs doing
this should instead be taught some better manners instead. The real nasty
is that a driver might not have initialised the locking it needs do that
exclusion until open occurs. I think n_tty is probably the only offender
and if so I'd rather fix that and make it a rule that you don't do that,
trying to fix it other ways is going to be more horrible I imagine.
--
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/