linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/5 V2] usb: call pm_runtime_put_sync in pm_runtime_get

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]

Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A24253F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:38:07 +0000
From:	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Li, Fei" <fei.li@...el.com>
CC:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Lan, Tianyu" <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	"sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com" <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	"rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/5 V2] usb: call pm_runtime_put_sync in
 pm_runtime_get_sync failed case



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@...land.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:17 PM
> To: Li, Fei
> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Lan, Tianyu; sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com;
> rjw@...k.pl; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Liu,
> Chuansheng
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5 V2] usb: call pm_runtime_put_sync in
> pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
> 
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Li Fei wrote:
> 
> >
> > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by Liu Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/usb/core/hub.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> > index 5480352..f72dede 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> > @@ -3148,12 +3148,13 @@ int usb_port_resume(struct usb_device *udev,
> pm_message_t msg)
> >
> >  	if (port_dev->did_runtime_put) {
> >  		status = pm_runtime_get_sync(&port_dev->dev);
> > -		port_dev->did_runtime_put = false;
> >  		if (status < 0) {
> >  			dev_dbg(&udev->dev, "can't resume usb port, status %d\n",
> >  					status);
> > +			pm_runtime_put_sync(&port_dev->dev);
> >  			return status;
> >  		}
> > +		port_dev->did_runtime_put = false;
> >  	}
> 
> I don't see much point in this.  After a failed resume, the port's
> runtime PM status is undefined.  Whether or not you do a
> pm_runtime_put_sync won't make any difference.
In case of failed resume, calling pm_runtime_put_sync() is just for decrease the dev->power.usage_count,
because pm_runtime_get_sync() always increase the dev->power.usage_count even failed.

If not pairing runtime_get/put, after that case, the device can not enter runtime suspend any more due to dev->power.usage_count > 0 always.
Is it making sense?

Thanks.
> 
> 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/