From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933368AbXCMVUq (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933372AbXCMVUq (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20:46 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:35467 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933368AbXCMVUp (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Hugh Dickins cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Oliver Neukum , Maneesh Soni , , Richard Purdie , James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , Kernel development list Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc suspend regression: sysfs deadlock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On the other hand, a quick survey of the kernel source shows that > > DEVICE_ATTR is used over 1500 times. Auditing all of them is not a job > > for the faint-of-heart! > > Indeed, and faint-hearted Hugh wasn't intending to do so: but > stout-hearted Alan will need to, won't he, before his patch can go in? Allow me to point out that the original patch is Oliver's (although I helped), and it doesn't need to go in -- it needs not to be removed. Furthermore, I have better things to do with the next month of my time than auditing hundreds of routines I don't understand for behavior I probably won't be able to recognize. (Although at 50 a day... hmmm, maybe.) This sounds more like a job for kernel-janitors! On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > I think we could rely on subsystems maintainers to let us know if > there are potential problems. For example I can tell that neither > input, serio nor gameport subsystems use sysfs to destroy their > devices (action on sysfs may cause some other device to be destroyed > but that should be ok, only self-destruction is not allowed, right?) Very good points. USB doesn't do anything like that either. And right, it's okay for a method to destroy other devices; it just can't do anything that would lead to its own unregistration. Alan Stern