[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aS8_yf3huoqDz2hB@google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 11:36:41 -0800
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.18
On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 03:37:58PM +0100, Wysocki, Rafael J wrote:
> On 12/2/2025 5:50 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Looking closer at this part of the API, I think checking the return code
> > of pm_runtime_barrier() is a bad idea, since it's inherently racy, and
> > there's really no way to control that race. On the plus side, this test
> > is the only one that does it. So I can probably just go ahead and make
> > pm_runtime_barrier() a void function, and stop pretending it's part of
> > the API surface. One fewer weird part of the runtime PM API to think
> > about...
>
> Yes, pm_runtime_barrier() should be void, the return value is a leftover
> thing.
Thanks for the confirmation.
> > Maybe I can get around to that tomorrow.
>
> I can do it unless you specifically want to take care of it yourself.
I wrote the (bad) test, so I figured it's good citizenship to fix it.
And anyway, I drafted it most of it yesterday already.
I've submitted a version here
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] PM: runtime: Stop checking pm_runtime_barrier() return code
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251202193129.1411419-1-briannorris@chromium.org/
Feel free to tweak it or do it in your preferred way though, if you'd
like.
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists