[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4371647.pFRZSjEjHz@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:42 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Cc: Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
On Friday, April 05, 2013 01:39:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 05, 2013 09:27:40 AM Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > Hi Li,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com> 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.
> >
> > Is it better then to call pm_runtime_put_noidle instead? This way
> > we're sure to only take care of usage_count without ever calling any
> > underlying pm handler.
>
> Both would break code that does
>
> pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>
> <device access>
>
> pm_runtime_put(dev);
>
> without checking the result of pm_runtime_get_sync() - which BTW is completely
> unnecessary in the majority of cases.
Sorry, scratch that. I should have had a closer look at the context.
Yes, it better to call pm_runtime_put_noidle() in this case.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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