[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j4chSHHiJYaxPuCcH8qM_yRd8y2FwtEL-Yp77Uq5RU3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:01:41 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: sleep: Restore asynchronous device resume optimization
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 8:58 AM Stanislaw Gruszka
<stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:05:07PM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:33:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I would consider different naming just to make clear this
> > > > is regarding async call, in_progress looks too generic for me.
> > >
> > > OK, what about async_in_progress?
> > Sure, that better.
>
> Even better would be using_async IMO, because we don't know if
> async call is in progress or finish or before start.
Well, "in progress" applies to all of the processing of the async call
and I regard it as "in progress" once it is known that it will run
asynchronously eventually.
In any case, I've already applied the async_in_progress version, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists