From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:09:49 +0100
Message-ID: <20100527220949.GB10602@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20100527222514.0a1710bf@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1005271730180.3239-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> <20100527230806.4deb6de3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100527230806.4deb6de3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:08:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:

> This is I believe robust (and has been implemented on some non x86
> boxes). It depends on not forcing running tasks into suspend. That is the
> key.

We've already established that ACPI systems require us to force running 
tasks into suspend. How do we avoid the race in that situation?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org