netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] pm: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240123172423.GA317147@bhelgaas>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:24:23 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
	laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Paul Elder <paul.elder@...asonboard.com>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] pm: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active()
 usage

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:56:42AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> There are two ways to opportunistically increment a device's runtime PM
> usage count, calling either pm_runtime_get_if_active() or
> pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(). The former has an argument to tell whether to
> ignore the usage count or not, and the latter simply calls the former with
> ign_usage_count set to false. The other users that want to ignore the
> usage_count will have to explitly set that argument to true which is a bit
> cumbersome.
> 
> To make this function more practical to use, remove the ign_usage_count
> argument from the function. The main implementation is renamed as
> pm_runtime_get_conditional().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org> # drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> # sound/
> Reviewed-by: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com> # drivers/accel/ivpu/
> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com> # drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>

Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> # drivers/pci/

- Previous PM history uses "PM: " in the subject lines (not "pm: ").

- I don't know whether it's feasible, but it would be nice if the
  intel_pm_runtime_pm.c rework could be done in one shot instead of
  being split between patches 1/3 and 2/3.

  Maybe it could be a preliminary patch that uses the existing
  if_active/if_in_use interfaces, followed by the trivial if_active
  updates in this patch.  I think that would make the history easier
  to read than having the transitory pm_runtime_get_conditional() in
  the middle.

- Similarly, it would be nice if pm_runtime_get_conditional() never
  had to be published in pm_runtime.h, instead of being temporarily
  added there by this patch and then immediately made private by 2/3.
  Maybe that's not practical, I dunno.

Bjorn