[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617135940.GU2324254@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:29:40 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Navid Emamdoost <navid.emamdoost@...il.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, 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>,
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 03-06-20, 14:17, Navid Emamdoost wrote:
> 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.
Yeah ignore these :) no one takes this 'bot' seriously, it is annoying
yes :(
> >
> > 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.
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists