> >> -#define TRACE_DEVICE(dev) do { \
> >> +#define TRACE_DEVICE_START(dev) do { \
> >> if (pm_trace_enabled) \
> >> + mutex_lock(&pt_mutex); \
> >> set_trace_device(dev); \
> >> } while(0)
> >>
> >> +#define TRACE_DEVICE_END() \
> >> +do { \
> >> + if (pm_trace_enabled) { \
> >> + mutex_unlock(&pt_mutex); \
> >> + } \
> >> +} while (0)
> >> +
> > Won't this serialize the whole thing again?
> Yes, this mutex lock will ultimately serialize all PM operations. But, all
> device's PM operations are asynchronous each other at first. So, the PM
> operation order of all devices will vary in multiple suspend/resume. This can
> be similar to real to an extreme, and helpful to debugging.
>
I believe the tradeoff here is wrong. Just keep PM_TRACE simple, and
use something else for a real tricky failures..
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
