Re: [PATCH] USB: fix Scheduling while atomic warning when resuming.

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Tuesday 21 December 2004 9:27 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > There's no guarantee that suspend() and resume() methods
> > are only called during system-wide suspend and resume.
> 
> That is precisely the reason why I am concerned.  If it was only during 
> system-wide resume, the impact of the very-long mdelay() would be more 
> difficult to notice.
> 
> You also ignored my question :)

I didn't ignore it; I answered it with a question!  If you had
answered mine, you'd have had the answer to yours ... :)

One way another task can be active during resume is with sysfs:
"echo -n 0 > /sys/devices/.../power/state", after similar selective
suspend of the device.  That's uncommon for now, primarily useful
for unit-testing driver suspend/resume.  Plus, its design is
currently borked; the pm core code doesn't bother to suspend
children of the device first.  But I do expect that selective
suspend/resume should work in Linux; it's not reasonable to design
the pm framework otherwise.

But in any case, while it'd be difficult to notice that mdelay()
in current systems (since selective suspend/resume is still rare)
it'd clearly be wrong to assume that resume() methods don't need
to have mutual exclusion during their critical sections.


> If the PCI layer is calling the resume method for a PCI device while 
> simultaneously calling the suspend method, that's a PCI layer problem.

I never suggested such a scenario.  Though that would be another
case where such critical sections matter, like the remove() method.


> Similarly, If the USB layer is calling into your driver while you are 
> resuming, something is broken and it ain't your locking.

Which gets back to the question I asked you:  if not the lock in
question, what's ensuring that everything behaves right?

As I said originally, I don't much like long udelays, but
at least it's clearly correct in terms of mutual exclusion.
You've not shown any solution that's equivalently correct.

- Dave