From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: samsung: resume race fix Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20130124132759.GH12933@pengutronix.de> References: <1352284106-24988-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> <20121107114437.0a563c7e@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgApRN/oydYDdnYz" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121107114437.0a563c7e@endymion.delvare> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, naveenkrishna.ch@gmail.com, ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, olofj@chromium.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --OgApRN/oydYDdnYz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 11:44:37AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:58:26 +0530, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote: > > Don't unmark the device as suspended until after it's been re-setup. > >=20 > > The main race would be w.r.t. an i2c driver that gets resumed at the sa= me > > time (asyncronously), that is allowed to do a transfer since suspended > > is set to 0 before reinit, but really should have seen the -EIO return > > instead. >=20 > I thought that the suspend order was children first and the resume > order was parent first? Same here, why does it not work this way? Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --OgApRN/oydYDdnYz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlEBNt8ACgkQD27XaX1/VRtiggCgrNIHvOu0QP3EddBIjEhvTavN 3GIAn2o9/th62ACplEoFn7EkAINdsfTL =aomI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgApRN/oydYDdnYz--