[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ghayA4pqCY4=qbTwd6qSJ=JvZZb93SPkCtBoaaDkXQ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:26:21 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@...wei.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM: runtime: replace pm_runtime_resume_and_get with pm_runtime_resume_and_get_sync
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:17 PM Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> In the pm_runtime_resume_and_get, pm_runtime_resume() is
> synchronous. Caller had to look into the implementation
> to verify that a change for pm_runtime_resume_and_get [0].
Well, "resume" is "sync" by definition.
> So we use pm_rauntime_resume_and_get_sync to replace it to
> avoid making the same mistake while fixing
> pm_runtime_get_sync.
No, we are not making this change.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists