[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1107232136490.26837-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:41:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: add might_sleep to PM runtime functions
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 23, 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
> >> The list of functions that can be called in atomic context is
> >> non-intuitive (pm_runtime_put_sync can not, but
> >> pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend can, if pm_runtime_irq_safe has
> >> been called?).
> >
> > However, this behavior is documented.
> >
> > Also, if you have a clean use case for calling rpm_idle() with interrupts
> > off, it can be modified to work in analogy with rpm_suspend() in that respect.
>
> Yes, Kevin posted that patch in response to a bug that would never
> have existed with this patch. Even with Kevin's change, this patch
> still detects drivers that are missing pm_runtime_irq_safe().
I suggest that adding the annotations to __pm_runtime_idle(),
__pm_runtime_suspend(), and __pm_runtime_resume() is entirely
reasonable. But the annotations to __pm_runtime_disable() and
__pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() do seem 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists