lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@sisk.pl]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:42 PM
> To: Ohad Ben-Cohen; Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: Li, Fei; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in
> pm_runtime_get_sync failed case
>
> On Friday, April 05, 2013 01:39:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, April 05, 2013 09:27:40 AM Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > > Hi Li,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Li Fei <fei.li@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Even in failed case of pm_runtime_get_sync, the usage_count
> > > > is incremented. In order to keep the usage_count with correct
> > > > value and runtime power management to behave correctly, call
> > > > pm_runtime_put(_sync) in such case.
> > >
> > > Is it better then to call pm_runtime_put_noidle instead? This way
> > > we're sure to only take care of usage_count without ever calling any
> > > underlying pm handler.
> >
> > Both would break code that does
> >
> > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> >
> > <device access>
> >
> > pm_runtime_put(dev);
> >
> > without checking the result of pm_runtime_get_sync() - which BTW is
> completely
> > unnecessary in the majority of cases.
>
> Sorry, scratch that. I should have had a closer look at the context.
>
> Yes, it better to call pm_runtime_put_noidle() in this case.
>
Thanks for your feedback.
I'll upload patch V2 for this topic.

Thanks,
Fei

> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-05 15:42    [W:0.053 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site