Thread (19 messages) 19 messages, 5 authors, 2011-07-01

Re: [linux-pm] runtime PM usage_count during driver_probe_device()?

From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: 2011-07-01 15:25:57

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
OK, so the ->probe() part has been explained and makes sense, but I
would expect ->remove() to be similarily protected (as the documentation
states.)  But that is not the case.  Is that a bug?  If so, patch below
makes the code match the documentation.
I suspect it is a bug, but it's hard to be sure.  It's so _blatantly_ 
wrong that it looks like it was done deliberately.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Kevin

From eef73ab2feb203bacb57dc35862f2a9969b61593 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kevin Hilman <redacted>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:37:47 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] driver core: prevent runtime PM races with ->remove()

Runtime PM Documentation states that the runtime PM usage count is
incremented during driver ->probe() and ->remove().  This is designed
to prevent driver runtime PM races with subsystems which may initiate
runtime PM transitions before during and after drivers are loaded.

Current code increments the usage_count during ->probe() but not
during ->remove().  This patch fixes the ->remove() part and makes the
code match the documentation.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <redacted>
---
 drivers/base/dd.c |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
index 6658da7..47e079d 100644
--- a/drivers/base/dd.c
+++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
@@ -329,13 +329,13 @@ static void __device_release_driver(struct device *dev)
 			blocking_notifier_call_chain(&dev->bus->p->bus_notifier,
 						     BUS_NOTIFY_UNBIND_DRIVER,
 						     dev);
-
-		pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
-
 		if (dev->bus && dev->bus->remove)
 			dev->bus->remove(dev);
 		else if (drv->remove)
 			drv->remove(dev);
+
+		pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
+
 		devres_release_all(dev);
 		dev->driver = NULL;
 		klist_remove(&dev->p->knode_driver);
To be safer, the put_sync() call should be moved down here.  Or maybe 
even after the blocking_notifier_call_chain() that occurs here.

Alan Stern
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help