[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEkB2ET_gfNUAuoZHxiGWZX7d3CQaJYJJqS2Fspif5mFq4-xfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:17:08 -0500
From: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
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>,
LKML <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
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:52 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> > 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?
Please stop proposing rewording on my patches!
I will consider updating my patches only if a maintainer asks for it.
>
> 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
--
Navid.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists