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
next prev parent 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