[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200521091505.GF30374@kadam>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 12:15:05 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: dinghao.liu@....edu.cn
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kjlu@....edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] media: staging: tegra-vde: fix runtime pm imbalance
on error
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:42:55AM +0800, dinghao.liu@....edu.cn wrote:
> Hi, Dan,
>
> I agree the best solution is to fix __pm_runtime_resume(). But there are also
> many cases that assume pm_runtime_get_sync() will change PM usage
> counter on error. According to my static analysis results, the number of these
> "right" cases are larger. Adjusting __pm_runtime_resume() directly will introduce
> more new bugs. Therefore I think we should resolve the "bug" cases individually.
>
That's why I was saying that we may need to introduce a new replacement
function for pm_runtime_get_sync() that works as expected.
There is no reason why we have to live with the old behavior.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists