Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: semantic patch to use pm_runtime_resume_and_get
From: Johan Hovold
Date: Tue Apr 27 2021 - 11:01:11 EST
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:44:25PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 08:54:04PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > pm_runtime_get_sync keeps a reference count on failure, which can lead
> > > to leaks. pm_runtime_resume_and_get drops the reference count in the
> > > failure case. This rule very conservatively follows the definition of
> > > pm_runtime_resume_and_get to address the cases where the reference
> > > count is unlikely to be needed in the failure case.
> > >
> > > pm_runtime_resume_and_get was introduced in
> > > commit dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to
> > > deal with usage counter")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxxx>
> > As I've said elsewhere, not sure trying to do a mass conversion of this
> > is a good idea. People may not be used to the interface, but it is
> > consistent and has its use. The recent flurry of conversions show that
> > those also risk introducing new bugs in code that is currently tested
> > and correct.
> I looked some of the patches you commented on, and this rule would not
> have transformed those cases. This rule is very restricted to ensure that
> the transformed code follows the behavior of the new function.
Ah, ok. I didn't look too closely at the semantic patch itself and
wrongly associated it with the all-or-nothing media subsystem
Thanks for clarifying further in v3 too.
Still a bit worried that this will push the cleanup crew to send more
broken patches since it sends a signal that pm_runtime_get_sync() is
always wrong. But guess there's not much to do about that now after
having added pm_runtime_resume_and_get() in the first place.