Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device()

Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-02T16:48:24Z

On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > >
> > > It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or
> > > hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in that
> > > cases. For this reason, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism allowing one
> > > to ask the PM core to remove a device object corresponding to a suspended
> > > device on one's behalf.
> > >
> > > Define function destroy_suspended_device() that will schedule the removal of
> > > a device object corresponding to a suspended device by the PM core during the
> > > subsequent resume.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > Sorry, a small fix is needed for this patch. Namely, dpm_sysfs_remove(dev)
> > should not be called by device_pm_schedule_removal(), because it will be called
> > anyway from device_pm_remove() when the device object is finally unregistered
> > (we're talking here about unlikely error paths only, but still).
>
> The situation is a little confusing, because the source files under
> drivers/base/power are maintained in Greg's tree and he already has
> gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch
> installed. That patch conflicts with this one.
>
> One of the these two patches will have to be rewritten to apply on top
> of the other. Which do you think should be changed?

Well, from the bisectability point of view, it would be better to adjust
gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch and let the
$subject patch series go first, if you don't mind.

Rafael