[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100530201142.GC25545@gvim.org>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:11:42 -0700
From: mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>, markgross@...gnar.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [patch] complain when users abuse the pm_qos API
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday 30 May 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On 30/05/10 06:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Saturday 29 May 2010, mark gross wrote:
> > >> The following patch is to help clean up API abusers of pm_qos where
> > >> they call update_request before registering a request.
> > >>
> > >> --mgross
> > >>
> > >> --Signed-off-by: markgross<markgross@...gnar.org>
> > >
> > > Will there be a big issue if I push this during the next merge window?
> >
> > What's the point to the patch? That is: why is calling update_request
> > before registering a request such a big problem that it demands a WARN()
> > and dump stack?
>
> It is an API violation if I understand that correctly.
Yeah, it is, but now that I'm thinking clearly perhaps a better fix
would be to change the prototype of pm_qos_update_request to return
something so callers can check for success.
Lets fix the API rather than use this patch. Please dopt apply it.
--mgross
--
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