[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <873bfb31-52d8-7c9b-5480-4a94dc945307@web.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:52:27 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-mdma: call pm_runtime_put if
pm_runtime_get_sync fails
> Calling pm_runtime_get_sync increments the counter even in case of
> failure, causing incorrect ref count. Call pm_runtime_put if
> pm_runtime_get_sync fails.
Is it appropriate to copy a sentence from the change description
into the patch subject?
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
The PM runtime reference counter is generally incremented by a call of
the function “pm_runtime_get_sync”.
Thus call the function “pm_runtime_put” also in two error cases
to keep the reference counting consistent.
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists