From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Mickler Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pm_qos: make update_request non blocking Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20100614164948.3b39d550__761.648701927875$1276527379$gmane$org@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <1276097381-3982-1-git-send-email-florian@mickler.org> <1276097832.4343.223.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100609180033.39d5b499@schatten.dmk.lab> <1276099645.4343.257.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100609183204.1eeca494@schatten.dmk.lab> <1276103149.4343.350.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100610094525.0449d797@schatten.dmk.lab> <1276177144.27283.37.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100610164118.15ec7a05@schatten.dmk.lab> <1276266352.2862.70.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100614163339.755a2b5b@schatten.dmk.lab> <1276526646.5374.8.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1276526646.5374.8.camel@mulgrave.site> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: James Bottomley Cc: markgross@thegnar.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Jonathan Corbet , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pm list , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:44:06 -0500 James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:33 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:25:52 -0500 > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, pm_qos_remove now needs a flush_scheduled work since you don't > > > want to return until the list is clear (since the next action may be to > > > free the object). > > > > The work-items are allocated in the pm_qos objects (which get never > > freed), so we should be fine there. > > That's not a safe assumption. Once we get into drivers, timers and cpu > ilde states, I can see these things being in modules. > > Regardless, it's bad programming practise to be using something after > the final remove is called, it certainly violates the principle of least > surprise and would usually eventually cause problems. > > James > I absolutely defer to you in this question. But there is no pm_qos_remove at the moment, as far as I see? Should I add one? When and how would it be called? Maybe I'm not understanding you right at the moment. Cheers, Flo