linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Fix pm_runtime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFq4KPbrQM7B79NsE1MjiOJ-3rRNt8ZEN+JvW=_pS-1JbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:26:52 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Fix pm_runtime_active() kerneldoc comment

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 17:19, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> The kerneldoc comment of pm_runtime_active() does not reflect the
> behavior of the function, so update it accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>

Kind regards
Uffe

> ---
>  include/linux/pm_runtime.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static inline bool pm_runtime_suspended(
>   * pm_runtime_active - Check whether or not a device is runtime-active.
>   * @dev: Target device.
>   *
> - * Return %true if runtime PM is enabled for @dev and its runtime PM status is
> + * Return %true if runtime PM is disabled for @dev or its runtime PM status is
>   * %RPM_ACTIVE, or %false otherwise.
>   *
>   * Note that the return value of this function can only be trusted if it is
>
>
>