All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, rdunlap@xenotime.net,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, pavel@ucw.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of [un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:59:54 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111205175954.GH627@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EDD05C6.8080809@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

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

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of [un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:59:54 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111205175954.GH627@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EDD05C6.8080809@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-05 18:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-04 20:02 [PATCH 1/3] PM / Sleep: Make [un]lock_system_sleep() generic Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-04 20:02 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-04 20:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] PM / Sleep: Replace mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex) with [un]lock_system_sleep() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-04 20:03   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-04 20:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of [un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex) Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-04 20:03   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:15   ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:15     ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:38     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:38       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:43       ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:43         ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:56         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:56           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:59           ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-12-05 17:59             ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] PM / Sleep: Make [un]lock_system_sleep() generic Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:14   ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:25   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:25     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:30     ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:30       ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-05 17:41       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 17:41         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 18:28         ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 18:28           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 18:35           ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-05 18:35             ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-05 19:18             ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 19:18               ` Srivatsa S. Bhat

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111205175954.GH627@google.com \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.