Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 13 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > +	dev->power.direct_complete = ret > 0 && state.event == PM_EVENT_SUSPEND
> > > +					&& pm_runtime_suspended(dev);
> > 
> > Shouldn't the flag be set under the spinlock?
> 
> I guess you're worried about runtime PM flags being modified in parallel to
> this?  But we've just done the barrier a while ago, so is that still a concern
> here?

A wakeup request from the hardware could cause a runtime resume to 
occur at this time.  The barrier wouldn't prevent that.

It's unlikely, I agree, but not impossible.

Alan Stern

--
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/