On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:

quoted text
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2008 13:40:53 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > On Tuesday, 25 of March 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Montag 24 März 2008 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> 
> > > > + *     after @prepare() returns.  If @prepare() detects a situation it cannot
> > > > + *     handle (e.g. registration of a child already in progress), it may return
> > > > + *     -EAGAIN, so that the PM core can execute it once again (e.g. after the
> > > > + *     new child has been registered) to recover from the race condition. This
> > > > + *     method is executed for all kinds of suspend transitions and is followed
> > > > + *     by one of the suspend callbacks: @suspend(), @freeze(), or @poweroff().
> > > 
> > > This could be understood so that disconnect() cannot be called.
> > 
> > At what time exactly?
> 
> I see no locking that would would prevent disconnect() in the window between
> prepare() and suspend()/...

There is no such locking.  It's perfectly legal for a device to be 
unregistered between prepare() and suspend().  I suppose it wouldn't 
hurt to add a general comment explaining that a device can be 
unregistered at any time except when one of its methods is running.

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/