Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753518Ab0K3PNp (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:45 -0500 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:37841 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751393Ab0K3PNo (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:43 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" cc: Linux-pm mailing list , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Prevent dpm_prepare() from returning errors unnecessarily In-Reply-To: <201011292304.11856.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: 1775 Lines: 44 On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Oh, I see. This is a tricky issue. Every driver for a device that can > > have wakeup-enabled children needs to worry about the race between > > suspending the device and receiving a wakeup request from a child. > > For example, in drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c, the suspend_common() > > routine goes out of its way to return -EBUSY if device_may_wakeup() is > > true and the controller's root hub has a pending wakeup request. > > > > How should drivers handle this in general? Should we make an effort to > > convert them to use the wakeup framework so they they can let the PM > > core take care of these races? > > I think so. > > We also need to put a pm_check_wakeup_events() check into dpm_suspend() IMO, > so that we abort the suspending of devices as soon as a wakeup event is > reported. You might as well add that into this patch. > > Do we have to consider similar races during runtime suspend? > > Ideally, yes, but I'm not sure if that's generally possible. IMO, it won't be > a big deal if a parent device is suspended and immediately resumed occasionally > due to a pending wakeup signal from one of its children. It may be a problem > if that happens too often, though. Okay. > Does it mean you're fine with the patch? Provided you repair the error that Lei Ming pointed out. That's the problem with functions that return Boolean values -- you have to name them very carefully. Ideally the name should be a predicate or a question. 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/