On Thursday, 21 of February 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > +bool in_suspend_context(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + bool result; > > > > + > > > > + mutex_lock(&suspending_task_mtx); > > > > + result = (suspending_task == current); > > > > + mutex_unlock(&suspending_task_mtx); > > > > + return result; > > > > +} > > > > > > If suspending_task == current then you are guaranteed to be serialized, > > > because everything a single task does is serial. > > > > As I said before (but that doesn't seem to reach the list, so I'm > > repeating), > > this is to protect other tasks from reading an inconsistent value of > > suspending_task in case they attempt to remove a device concurrently with > > respect to us. > > > > While this is not likely to happen right now, because of the freezer, it may > > very well happen when the freezer is finally removed. > > Sorry, I don't understand. Are you worried that process A might set > suspending_task = A but then process B might still see suspending_task > == NULL? Or that A might set suspend_task = NULL but then B might > still see suspending_task == A? > > Neither one will cause any problem, since the only case that matters is > when B sees suspending_task == B -- and that can happen if and only if > B was the last process to set suspending_task. > > In fact, you might as well get rid of the set_suspending_task() routine > entirely and just put the assignments inline.
OK, I will. > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/core.c > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/core.c > > @@ -929,6 +929,11 @@ void device_del(struct device *dev) > > struct device *parent = dev->parent; > > struct class_interface *class_intf; > > > > + if (in_suspend_context()) { > > + get_device(dev); > > Where is this get_device() undone? Shouldn't there be an extra > put_device() added to unregister_dropped_devices()? No, I don't think so, because unregister_dropped_devices() calls device_unregister() that does the put_device() eventually. If we are called by device_unregister(), the get_device() is needed to balance the put_device() that will be called by device_unregister() after we return. OTOH, if we are called directly, then we need to balance the put_device() that will be done by device_unregister() called from unregister_dropped_devices(). I hope I didn't miss anything. > > + device_pm_schedule_removal(dev); > > + return; > > + } > > device_pm_remove(dev); > > if (parent) > > klist_del(&dev->knode_parent); > > And now the change to device_destroy() isn't needed at all. No, it's not. Didn't I remove it? I thought I did. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/