From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f177.google.com ([209.85.161.177]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1RXc8H-0006L7-UQ for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:15:14 +0000 Received: by mail-gx0-f177.google.com with SMTP id i1so6417180ggk.36 for ; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:15:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:15:08 -0800 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PM / Docs: Recommend the use of [un]lock_system_sleep() over mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex) Message-ID: <20111205171508.GC627@google.com> References: <20111204200208.25620.515.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20111204200332.25620.53610.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111204200332.25620.53610.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" 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 Hello, On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 01:33:42AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > Update the documentation to explain the perils of directly using > mutex_[un]lock(&pm_mutex) and recommend the usage of the safe > APIs [un]lock_system_sleep() instead. Maybe just make it pm internal? -- tejun _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec