[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf3BirttCnW5KarsL0_MqofpWnEN5K5z+TY2YZV-R9fhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 18:34:56 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/36] i2c: tegra: Runtime PM always available on Tegra
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:25 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
> 07.09.2020 18:05, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:32 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
> >> 07.09.2020 11:10, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
...
> >> Would be great if anyone could put effort into changing the default
> >> get_sync() behaviour and add get_sync_nofail(). Otherwise this will be a
> >> never ending problem.
> >
> > I didn't get this. For time being the API (yes, with its all cons) has
> > the clear usage:
> > a) don't check for errors -- you are fine
> > b) if you start checking errors, keep in mind refcounting.
> >
> > So, I don't see how nofail() can fix b) case.
> >
>
> It's a very unintuitive behaviour which none of other APIs have. I would
> never expect the refcount to be bumped in a case of error, this is a
> clear drawback of the API, IMO.
I agree.
> Perhaps this is not seen as a problem by
> people who have excellent memory and can easily remember about existence
> of such non-standard quirks, or by people who're touching the RPM code
> frequently.
...or by running coccinelle script.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists