Re: question on resume()
- From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:40:14 +0100 (MET)
Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 09:33 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 23:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Generally, you are safe if your driver only calls wake_up() from a process
context, but not from .resume() or .suspend() routines (or from an
unfreezeable kernel thread).
Ah, sorry, I've just realized I was wrong. Processes in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
cannot be frozen! So, the above only applies to wake_up_interruptible().
So the kernel will wait for tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to finish IO
before it calls suspend()? I am confused.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Rafael J. Wysocki
- Re: question on resume()
- References:
- question on resume()
- From: Oliver Neukum
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Rafael J. Wysocki
- Re: question on resume()
- From: Rafael J. Wysocki
- question on resume()
- Prev by Date: Re: question on resume()
- Next by Date: Re: System crash after "No irq handler for vector" linux 2.6.19
- Previous by thread: Re: question on resume()
- Next by thread: Re: question on resume()
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
