Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:20:52 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] driver core: Fixes related to device links |
| |
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:06 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 03:52:53PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 15:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 01:01:13PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Hi Greg at al, > > > > > > > > These fix two issues on top of the recent device links material in > > > > driver-core/driver-core-next. > > > > > > > > The first one fixes a race condition that may trigger when > > > > __pm_runtime_set_status() is used incorrectly (that is, when it is > > > > called with PM-runtime enabled for the target device and working). > > > > > > > > The second one fixes a supplier PM-runtime usage counter imbalance > > > > resulting from adding and removing (e.g. in the error code path) a > > > > stateless device link to it from within the consumer driver's probe > > > > callback. > > > > > > > > Please refer to the patch changelogs for details. > > > > > > Looks good, all now queued up, thanks. > > > > Greg, please don't get me wrong, but ~1.5 hours isn't sufficient for > > me to review/test submitted patches. > > > > I have been trying to collaborate (review/test) device links related > > code with Rafael, but what's the point if you queue up the patches, > > before I even got the change to look at them. Shall I interpret it as > > you don't care about me reviewing this, then just tell me so I don't > > have to waste my time. > > As they are just in my -testing branch, I can easily drop them now if > you find problems. I didn't realize that Rafael was wanting you to > review this as they were marked as "fixes:" for previous patches.
Sorry for the confusion.
From my perspective they fix issues on top of the previous commits as indicated by the Fixes: tags and they work on my systems, but even though *I* think that they are all good, there still may be problems with them that I don't see. As usual. :-)
I guess I should have sent them as RFC this time.
Cheers, Rafael
| |