Re: 2.6.21-rc suspend regression: sysfs deadlock

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:23:10 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > +struct other_task_struct {
> > > +	struct kobject 		*kobj;
> > > +	void			(*func)(void *);
> > > +	void			*data;
> > > +	struct work_struct	work;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static void other_task_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct other_task_struct *ots = container_of(work,
> > > +			struct other_task_struct, work);
> > > +
> > > +	(ots->func)(ots->data);
> > > +	kobject_put(ots->kobj);
> > > +	kfree(ots);
> > > +}
> > 
> > The naming seems a bit unintuitive, but I don't have a good
> > alternative idea. Perhaps sysfs_work_struct, sysfs_delayed_work()?
> 
> sysfs_work_struct is too generic; other parts of sysfs might also want to
> use workqueues for different purposes.

> I don't like calling it "delayed"-anything, because the operations aren't
> necessarily delayed!  On an SMP system they might even execute before the
> sysfs_access_in_other_task() call returns.  (Although the two examples we
> have so far can't do that because of lock contention.)

Sure. But then you shouldn't refer to "delay" in the comments for the
functions as well :)

> The major feature added here is that the work takes place in a different 
> task's context, not that it is delayed.  Hence the choice of names.

Hm. Perhaps device_schedule_access()?
-
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/