From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751479Ab1KBUM1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:12:27 -0400
Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:48153 "EHLO
	out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750891Ab1KBUMX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:12:23 -0400
X-Sasl-enc: 4ZkZlXHu7FTWiINkwId5LnGoUfWM8TINU/MfOe3+5AXo 1320264742
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:11:01 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
        stable@kernel.org, Ulf Hansson <Ulf.Hansson@stericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6 v2] PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and
 system sleep (v2)
Message-ID: <20111102201101.GA5581@kroah.com>
References: <201106260054.20578.rjw@sisk.pl>
 <201106292329.04163.rjw@sisk.pl>
 <201106292334.24518.rjw@sisk.pl>
 <CAKnu2Mru4c-2LBCZ_k3ZA+v47u0+um8igYU7EWt8=qOTVgcUjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111102191432.GC29355@kroah.com>
 <CACRpkdY8zAw_pdwn2yUEJPdfYPS+VCcLrpucZzhCyNsVPYehdg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdY8zAw_pdwn2yUEJPdfYPS+VCcLrpucZzhCyNsVPYehdg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:06:02PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> 
> >> We have also backported:
> >> PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2)
> >> PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep
> >> PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended()
> >>
> >> And now it seems to be sufficient to get this thing going.
> >
> > So, what specific git commits do you want to see in the 3.0-stable
> > tree, and in what order should they be applied in?
> 
> So to my untrained eye it looks like it should be applied like this (top to
> bottom) using the reverse commit order from the mainline kernel:
> 
> e529192 PM: Introduce generic "noirq" callback routines for subsystems (v2)
> 455716e PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep
> 1e2ef05 PM: Limit race conditions between runtime PM and system sleep (v2)
> f3393b6 PM / Runtime: Add new helper function: pm_runtime_status_suspended()
> 
> So (2) documents the problem, (3) fixes it, whereas (1) and (4) makes
> it possible
> to write proper _noirq() code that does not race, IIRC.

But, after this, it's just adding new infrastructure that drivers will
then be able to use.  As I'm not adding new drivers to 3.0, there will
not be any users of this code, so why add it in the first place?  It
doesn't look like this follows the rules of the stable kernel tree at
all, does it?

confused,

greg k-h