On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:02:40AM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Anton Vorontsov <an...@enomsg.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:16:34PM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > > ... > >> >> So you can read this value without any type of synchronization > >> >> with the power_supply_core > >> >> and sysfs implementation? > > ... > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2013-January/025206.html > >> > >> I found and equivalent scenario that I was trying to said > > > > That's a good question, actually. Even though in Pali's case the notifier > > is atomic (so that we are pretty confident that the object won't be > > unregistered), there is still a possiblity of a dead lock, for example. So > > So if the get_property is a sleeping function it will be a deadlock. Right?
All kind of bad things might happen, yes. But before that I would expect a bunch of warnings from might_sleep() stuff. I would recommend to test the patches using preempt/smp kernels + various DEBUG_ kernel options set. Thanks, Anton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/