[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091202215008.GA6340@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:50:08 -0800
From: mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, perex@...ex.cz,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]PM_QOS-to-use-handle-based-requests-pcm-update 5/5
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:38:07PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:38:40 -0800,
> mark gross wrote:
> >
> > --- a/sound/core/pcm_native.c
> > +++ b/sound/core/pcm_native.c
> (snip)
> > @@ -506,8 +508,8 @@ static int snd_pcm_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > if (substream->ops->hw_free)
> > result = substream->ops->hw_free(substream);
> > runtime->status->state = SNDRV_PCM_STATE_OPEN;
> > - pm_qos_remove_requirement(PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY,
> > - substream->latency_id);
> > + pm_qos_remove_request(substream->latency_pm_qos_req);
>
> The NULL check seems needed in the caller side because
> pm_qos_remove_request() doesn't do it.
ouch. Thanks for noticing this.
>
> Or, would you add a NULL check in pm_qos_remove_request()?
> It'd be more handy.
I can make the pm_qos_remove_request null pointer safe, its assumed to
be a slow path so it would be a good thing to do.
I'll add this to the next patch set that the e1000e guys are making me
do against linux-next.
Thanks!
--mgross
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists