Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in pm_runtime_get_sync failed case

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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@xxxxxxxxx> 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,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/