Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of[un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex)

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:26:22PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Yes, that sounds good. No need for giving unnecessary choices :-)
> But I had worded the documentation that way with the intention of
> explaining why calling mutex_lock() over pm_mutex can be disastrous (which
> I mentioned in the commit message as one of the goals of the patch).
> I didn't mean it to give the user 2 choices and say please use
> [un]lock_system_sleep() preferably.
> 
> Although, we have to notice that unless somebody is acquainted with
> these APIs, the first instinct would probably be to directly use
> mutex_lock(), until they look up the documentation (hopefully).
> So, IMHO, it would do good to keep the explanation in the docs as
> it is, in this patch. What do you think?

Yeah, sounds good to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/