Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:49:48 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       markgross@thegnar.org, linville@tuxdriver.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       pm list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH v4] pm_qos: make update_request non blocking
Message-ID: <20100614164948.3b39d550@schatten.dmk.lab>
In-Reply-To: <1276526646.5374.8.camel@mulgrave.site>
References: <1276097381-3982-1-git-send-email-florian@mickler.org>
	<1276097832.4343.223.camel@mulgrave.site>
	<20100609180033.39d5b499@schatten.dmk.lab>
	<1276099645.4343.257.camel@mulgrave.site>
	<20100609183204.1eeca494@schatten.dmk.lab>
	<1276103149.4343.350.camel@mulgrave.site>
	<20100610094525.0449d797@schatten.dmk.lab>
	<1276177144.27283.37.camel@mulgrave.site>
	<20100610164118.15ec7a05@schatten.dmk.lab>
	<1276266352.2862.70.camel@mulgrave.site>
	<20100614163339.755a2b5b@schatten.dmk.lab>
	<1276526646.5374.8.camel@mulgrave.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1371
Lines: 38

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:44:06 -0500
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:33 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:25:52 -0500
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Actually, pm_qos_remove now needs a flush_scheduled work since you don't
> > > want to return until the list is clear (since the next action may be to
> > > free the object).
> > 
> > The work-items are allocated in the pm_qos objects (which get never
> > freed), so we should be fine there.
> 
> That's not a safe assumption.  Once we get into drivers, timers and cpu
> ilde states, I can see these things being in modules.
> 
> Regardless, it's bad programming practise to be using something after
> the final remove is called, it certainly violates the principle of least
> surprise and would usually eventually cause problems.
> 
> James
> 

I absolutely defer to you in this question. But there is no
pm_qos_remove at the moment, as far as I see? Should I add one? When
and how would it be called?

Maybe I'm not understanding you right at the moment. 

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/