On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted text
> On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted text
> > > Still, even doing that is not enough, since someone can call
> > > destroy_suspended_device() from a .suspend() routine and then the device
> > > will end up on a wrong list just as well.
> > 
> > That should never happen.  The whole idea of destroy_suspended_device()
> > is that the device couldn't be resumed and in fact should be
> > unregistered because it is no longer working or no longer present.  A
> > suspend routine won't detect this sort of thing since it doesn't try to
> > resume the device.
> > 
> > But it wouldn't hurt to mention in the kerneldoc that 
> > destroy_suspended_device() is meant to be called only during a system 
> > resume.
> 
> Hmm.  Please have a look at the appended patch.
> 
> I have removed the warning from device_del() and used list_empty() to detect
> removed devices in the .suspend() routines.  Is that viable?

It's not good.

The warning in device_del() is vital.  It's what will tell people where
the problem is when a deadlock occurs during system resume because some
driver has mistakenly tried to unregister a device at the wrong time.  
It would have pointed immediately to the msr driver in the case of the
bug Andrew found, for instance.

If you can figure out a way to disable the warning in device_del() for 
just the one device being unregistered by 
device_pm_destroy_suspended(), I suppose that would be okay.

Alan Stern



--
unsubscribe notice
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/