Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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
In-Reply-To: <20091007192507.2784266a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0910071434290.3051-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1139
Lines: 28

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

> > > 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 ?

Currently there are no such paths.  I keep forgetting that the resume
is done in serial_install() rather than serial_open().  Eventually the
tty_port reorganization will probably force the resume to move into the
activate method.

However in the option and sierra drivers there is a perverse path from
close to resume: Both their close methods call
usb_autopm_get_interface().  This could be removed without much
trouble; perhaps we should do so.

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/