[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251016133854.00003669@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:38:54 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "Alex
Williamson" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@...wei.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>, Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, "Linux ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, David Lechner
<dlechner@...libre.com>, "Fabio M. De Francesco"
<fabio.maria.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] PM: runtime: Introduce
PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE_OR_FAIL() macro
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:02:02 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> There appears to be an emerging pattern in which guard
> pm_runtime_active_try is used for resuming the given device and
> incrementing its runtime PM usage counter if the resume has been
> successful, that is followed by an ACQUIRE_ERR() check on the guard
> variable and if that triggers, a specific error code is returned, for
> example:
>
> ACQUIRE(pm_runtime_active_try, pm)(dev);
> if (ACQUIRE_ERR(pm_runtime_active_try, &pm))
> return -ENXIO
>
> Introduce a macro called PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE_OR_FAIL() representing the
> above sequence of statements that can be used to avoid code duplication
> wherever that sequence would be used.
>
> Use this macro right away in the PCI sysfs code where the above pattern
> is already present.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>
> Admittedly, the new macro is slightly on the edge, but it really helps
> reduce code duplication, so here it goes.
Fully agree with the 'on the edge'.
This looks somewhat like the some of the earlier attempts to come up with
a general solution before ACQUIRE(). Linus was fairly clear on his opinion of
a proposal that looked a bit similar to this
cond_guard(mutex_intr, return -EINTR, &mutex);
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=win7bwWhPJ=iuW4h-sDTqbX6v9_LJnMaO3KxVfPSs81bQ@mail.gmail.com/
+CC a few people who might have better memories of where things went than I do.
The solution you have here has the benefit of clarity that all it can do is
return the error code.
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> Any feedback (good, bad, ugly) will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 4 +---
> include/linux/pm_runtime.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> @@ -1517,9 +1517,7 @@ static ssize_t reset_method_store(struct
> return count;
> }
>
> - ACQUIRE(pm_runtime_active_try, pm)(dev);
> - if (ACQUIRE_ERR(pm_runtime_active_try, &pm))
> - return -ENXIO;
> + PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE_OR_FAIL(dev, -ENXIO);
>
> if (sysfs_streq(buf, "default")) {
> pci_init_reset_methods(pdev);
> --- a/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_runtime.h
> @@ -637,6 +637,11 @@ DEFINE_GUARD_COND(pm_runtime_active_auto
> DEFINE_GUARD_COND(pm_runtime_active_auto, _try_enabled,
> pm_runtime_resume_and_get(_T))
>
> +#define PM_RUNTIME_ACQUIRE_OR_FAIL(dev, error) \
> + ACQUIRE(pm_runtime_active_try, __pm)(dev); \
> + if (ACQUIRE_ERR(pm_runtime_active_try, &__pm)) \
> + return error
> +
> /**
> * pm_runtime_put_sync - Drop device usage counter and run "idle check" if 0.
> * @dev: Target device.
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists