On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted text
> On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > >> I don't see anything wrong with it.  All that will happen is that the
> > >> removal will start before the suspend and finish after the resume.
> > >
> > > In that case, we'll attempt to call the device's .suspend() and .resume()
> > > routines, but we shouldn't do that, IMHO.
> > 
> > I don't see anything wrong with that since the driver must be prepared to
> > handle that even in the regular case, it's the only thing you can
> > guarantee: no more method calls after removal finishes. Am I totally
> > misunderstanding things?
> 
> Well, we are towards the end of device removal at this point, having called
> bus_remove_device(dev) for example, but still we've got it on dpm_active ...
> 
> This may not be technically wrong (ie. we should be able to recover from
> that), but it seems conceptually wrong and with pm_sleep_rwsem in place it
> can be avoided.

No, it can't, without major complications.

Well, I think I'll just send a patch that should work most of the time ...

Rafael
--
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/