Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762614AbZLLAm5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:42:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762572AbZLLAmz (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:42:55 -0500 Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:52873 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1762407AbZLLAmy (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:42:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:43:01 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Linus Torvalds , Zhang Rui , LKML , ACPI Devel Maling List , pm list Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems) In-Reply-To: <200912120048.46180.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: 1466 Lines: 35 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Below is a patch I've just tested, but there's a lockdep problem in it I don't > know how to solve. Namely, lockdep is apparently unhappy with us not releasing > the lock taken in device_suspend() and it complains we take it twice in a row > (which we do, but for another device). I need to use down_read_non_owner() > to make it shut up and then I also need to use up_read_non_owner() in > __device_suspend(), although there's the comment in include/linux/rwsem.h > saying exatly this about that: > > /* > * Take/release a lock when not the owner will release it. > * > * [ This API should be avoided as much as possible - the > * proper abstraction for this case is completions. ] > */ > > (I'd like to know your opinion about that). Yet, that's not all, because next > it complains during resume that __device_resume() releases a lock it didn't > acquire, which it clearly does, but that is intentional. Unfortunately, > there's no up_write_non_owner() ... Hah! I knew it! How come lockdep didn't complain earlier? What's different about this patch? Only the nesting annotations? Why should adding annotations make lockdep less happy? 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/