[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251112063941.kbg44srt5f7rfkjb@lcpd911>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:09:41 +0530
From: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ACPI
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Zhang
Qilong" <zhangqilong3@...wei.com>, Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>, Dan Williams
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "Bjorn
Helgaas" <helgaas@...nel.org>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] PM: runtime: Wrapper macros for usage counter
guards
On Nov 07, 2025 at 19:35:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The runtime PM usage counter guards introduced recently:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/6196611.lOV4Wx5bFT@rafael.j.wysocki/
>
> and then fixed:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/5943878.DvuYhMxLoT@rafael.j.wysocki/
>
> should generally work, but using them feels sort of arcane and cryptic
> even though the underlying concept is relatively straightforward.
>
> For this reason, runtime PM wrapper macros around ACQUIRE() and
> ACQUIRE_ERR() involving the new guards are introduced in this series
> (patch [1/3]) and then used in the code already using the guards (patches
> [2/3] and [3/3]) to make it look more straightforward.
The patches look okay to me,
Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
--
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Powered by blists - more mailing lists