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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:40:25 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
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 03:48:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:44:04PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:24:23AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
> 
> > > - 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.
> > 
> > I think I'd merge the two patches. The second patch is fairly small, after
> > all, and both deal with largely the same code.
> 
> I'm not sure which two patches you mean, but the fact that two patches
> deal with largely the same code is not necessarily an argument for
> merging them.  From a reviewing perspective, it's nice if a patch like

Patches 1 and 2. The third patch introduces a new Runtime PM API function.

> 1/3, where it's largely mechanical and easy to review, is separated
> from patches that make more substantive changes.
> 
> That's why I think it'd be nice if the "interesting"
> intel_pm_runtime_pm.c changes were all in the same patch, and ideally,
> if that patch *only* touched intel_pm_runtime_pm.c.

I don't think squashing the second patch to the first really changes this
meaningfully: the i915 driver simply needs both
pm_runtime_get_if_{active,in_use}, and this is what the patch does to other
drivers already. Making the pm_runtime_get_conditional static would also
fit for the first patch if the desire is to not to introduce it at all.

-- 
Sakari Ailus