linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Clean up pm_runtime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:30:40 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Clean up pm_runtime_disable()

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > - * If @check_resume is set and there's a resume request pending when
> > > - * __pm_runtime_disable() is called and power.disable_depth is zero, the
> > > - * function will wake up the device before disabling its run-time PM.
> > >   */
> > > -void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume)
> > > +void pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > 
> > Why did you decide to remove the check_resume argument?  That decision 
> > should be explained in the patch description.
> 
> Well, I thought the "which is not necessary any more" would be a sufficient
> explanation ...

But why is it not necessary now, given that apparently it was necessary 
before?  What has changed to make it unnecessary?

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/