linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: Add helper to mark last busy and autosuspend

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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:06:35 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Subhransu S. Prusty" <subhransu.s.prusty@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Add helper to mark last busy and autosuspend

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:58:13AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Vinod Koul wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:27:53AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:
> > > 
> > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy and pm_runtime_put_autosuspend are used together
> > > > in quite a lot of places. Add a helper for these.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Subhransu S. Prusty <subhransu.s.prusty@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 6 ++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > > > index 367f49b..256ec50 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> > > > @@ -277,4 +277,10 @@ static inline void pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(struct device *dev)
> > > >  	__pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev, false);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static inline int pm_runtime_last_busy_and_autosuspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> > > > +	return pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > What's the advantage?  Removing a few bytes of source code?  There will 
> > > no change to the object code.  (Not to mention that your patch didn't 
> > > actually change _any_ of the places where both routines get called!)
> > Yes we didnt change users, as we need this for one of our drivers we are
> > trying to push.
> 
> Why do you need it?  Just change your driver to call
> 
> 	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> 	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> 
> instead of
> 
> 	pm_runtime_last_busy_and_autosuspend(dev);
> 
> Or create a subroutine in your driver to do this.
Well since this is common why not add a helper in framework!

-- 
~Vinod
--
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/