On Monday, 7 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:Yes, they need the locking. I have overlooked that, mostly because the locking was removed by gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch too (because you assumed there woundn't be any need to remove a device during a suspend, right?). No, I'm not. Do you mean it might have been released already by another thread calling device_pm_destroy_suspended() on the same device? Well, the asynchronous apprach has the problem that the device may end up on a wrong list when removed by one of the .suspend() callbacks (and I don't see how to avoid that without extra complexity). Perhaps that's something we can live with, though. One more question: is there any particular reason not to call device_pm_remove() at the beginning of device_del()? Rafael --
| Theodore Tso | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scan... |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH] [0/45] x86 2.6.24 patches review I |
git: | |
| Wenji Wu | RE: A Linux TCP SACK Question |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
