Re: [PATCH 4/6 v2] PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM andsystem sleep (v2)

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:06:02PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >> We have also backported:
> >> PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2)
> >> PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep
> >> PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended()
> >>
> >> And now it seems to be sufficient to get this thing going.
> >
> > So, what specific git commits do you want to see in the 3.0-stable
> > tree, and in what order should they be applied in?
> 
> So to my untrained eye it looks like it should be applied like this (top to
> bottom) using the reverse commit order from the mainline kernel:
> 
> e529192 PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2)
> 455716e PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep
> 1e2ef05 PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and system sleep (v2)
> f3393b6 PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended()
> 
> So (2) documents the problem, (3) fixes it, whereas (1) and (4) makes
> it possible
> to write proper _noirq() code that does not race, IIRC.

But, after this, it's just adding new infrastructure that drivers will
then be able to use.  As I'm not adding new drivers to 3.0, there will
not be any users of this code, so why add it in the first place?  It
doesn't look like this follows the rules of the stable kernel tree at
all, does it?

confused,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/