[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201202072341.38936.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:41:38 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, markgross@...gnar.org,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM / Sleep: Initialize wakeup source locks in wakeup_source_add()
On Tuesday, February 07, 2012, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 02:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> >
> > Initialize wakeup source locks in wakeup_source_add() instead of
> > wakeup_source_create(), because otherwise the locks of the wakeup
> > sources that haven't been allocated with wakeup_source_create()
> > aren't initialized and handled properly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>
> Ah, I've shot myself in the foot before, forgetting to init the wakeup
> source, so this should be good. Although, would a WARN_ON be better then
> just initializing the lock in add? That way bad behavior is more likely
> to be corrected, rather then just ignored.
Well, that's not bad behavior, since users are not supposed to open code
wakeup source initialization. _add() is supposed to do the job (that's
why I regard this one as a fix).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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