public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
To: "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: Make lock/unlock_system_sleep() available to kernel modules
Date: Fri,  5 Jan 2018 09:19:08 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180105171909.11839-2-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180105171909.11839-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com>

Since pm_mutex is not exported using lock/unlock_system_sleep() from
inside a kernel module causes a "pm_mutex undefined" linker error.
Hence move lock/unlock_system_sleep() into kernel/power/main.c and
export these.

Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
---
 include/linux/suspend.h | 28 ++--------------------------
 kernel/power/main.c     | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/suspend.h b/include/linux/suspend.h
index d60b0f5c38d5..cc22a24516d6 100644
--- a/include/linux/suspend.h
+++ b/include/linux/suspend.h
@@ -443,32 +443,8 @@ extern bool pm_save_wakeup_count(unsigned int count);
 extern void pm_wakep_autosleep_enabled(bool set);
 extern void pm_print_active_wakeup_sources(void);
 
-static inline void lock_system_sleep(void)
-{
-	current->flags |= PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
-	mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
-}
-
-static inline void unlock_system_sleep(void)
-{
-	/*
-	 * Don't use freezer_count() because we don't want the call to
-	 * try_to_freeze() here.
-	 *
-	 * Reason:
-	 * Fundamentally, we just don't need it, because freezing condition
-	 * doesn't come into effect until we release the pm_mutex lock,
-	 * since the freezer always works with pm_mutex held.
-	 *
-	 * More importantly, in the case of hibernation,
-	 * unlock_system_sleep() gets called in snapshot_read() and
-	 * snapshot_write() when the freezing condition is still in effect.
-	 * Which means, if we use try_to_freeze() here, it would make them
-	 * enter the refrigerator, thus causing hibernation to lockup.
-	 */
-	current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
-	mutex_unlock(&pm_mutex);
-}
+extern void lock_system_sleep(void);
+extern void unlock_system_sleep(void);
 
 #else /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
 
diff --git a/kernel/power/main.c b/kernel/power/main.c
index 3a2ca9066583..705c2366dafe 100644
--- a/kernel/power/main.c
+++ b/kernel/power/main.c
@@ -22,6 +22,35 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(pm_mutex);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
 
+void lock_system_sleep(void)
+{
+	current->flags |= PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
+	mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_system_sleep);
+
+void unlock_system_sleep(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Don't use freezer_count() because we don't want the call to
+	 * try_to_freeze() here.
+	 *
+	 * Reason:
+	 * Fundamentally, we just don't need it, because freezing condition
+	 * doesn't come into effect until we release the pm_mutex lock,
+	 * since the freezer always works with pm_mutex held.
+	 *
+	 * More importantly, in the case of hibernation,
+	 * unlock_system_sleep() gets called in snapshot_read() and
+	 * snapshot_write() when the freezing condition is still in effect.
+	 * Which means, if we use try_to_freeze() here, it would make them
+	 * enter the refrigerator, thus causing hibernation to lockup.
+	 */
+	current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
+	mutex_unlock(&pm_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unlock_system_sleep);
+
 /* Routines for PM-transition notifications */
 
 static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(pm_chain_head);
-- 
2.15.1

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-05 17:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-05 17:19 [PATCH 0/2] Fix a race condition between SPI domain validation and system suspend Bart Van Assche
2018-01-05 17:19 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2018-01-05 23:00   ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: Make lock/unlock_system_sleep() available to kernel modules Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-05 23:32     ` Bart Van Assche
2018-01-05 23:38       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-05 17:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] Fix a race condition between SPI domain validation and system suspend Bart Van Assche
2018-01-08 16:02   ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-01-09  0:27     ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=20180105171909.11839-2-bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --to=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=terraluna977@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox