All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "João Paulo Rechi Vita" <jprvita@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "Marcel Holtmann" <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"João Paulo Rechi Vita" <jprvita@endlessm.com>,
	linux@endlessm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] rfkill: Documentation and style fixes
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:19:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+A7VXU3VDyMHWDjtqNgHDydCcEcEDFO-ZBGAZEz9CB2Lh1gPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453234283.23600.5.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On 19 January 2016 at 15:11, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
>>  /**
>>   * rfkill_resume_polling(struct rfkill *rfkill)
>>   *
>> - * Pause polling -- say transmitter is off for other reasons.
>> + * Resume polling previously paused with rfkill_pause_polling.
>>   * NOTE: not necessary for suspend/resume -- in that case the
>> - * core stops polling anyway
>> + * core restarts polling anyway, even if was explicitly paused
>> + * before suspending.
>>   */
>
> If this is true, that's a bug, no? Drivers would call pause/resume when
> their status changes, and shouldn't be required to check status at
> resume time?
>

I did not dive too much into the logic here, but
rfkill_resume_polling() is called unconditionally on rfkill_resume(),
so it seems that if a driver call rfkill_pause_polling() before
suspend, on resume polling will be "un-paused". That indeed looks
strange.

--
João Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "João Paulo Rechi Vita" <jprvita@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "Marcel Holtmann" <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"João Paulo Rechi Vita" <jprvita@endlessm.com>,
	linux@endlessm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] rfkill: Documentation and style fixes
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:19:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+A7VXU3VDyMHWDjtqNgHDydCcEcEDFO-ZBGAZEz9CB2Lh1gPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453234283.23600.5.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On 19 January 2016 at 15:11, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
>>  /**
>>   * rfkill_resume_polling(struct rfkill *rfkill)
>>   *
>> - * Pause polling -- say transmitter is off for other reasons.
>> + * Resume polling previously paused with rfkill_pause_polling.
>>   * NOTE: not necessary for suspend/resume -- in that case the
>> - * core stops polling anyway
>> + * core restarts polling anyway, even if was explicitly paused
>> + * before suspending.
>>   */
>
> If this is true, that's a bug, no? Drivers would call pause/resume when
> their status changes, and shouldn't be required to check status at
> resume time?
>

I did not dive too much into the logic here, but
rfkill_resume_polling() is called unconditionally on rfkill_resume(),
so it seems that if a driver call rfkill_pause_polling() before
suspend, on resume polling will be "un-paused". That indeed looks
strange.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-19 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-19 15:42 [PATCH 0/8] General RFKill improvements João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 1/8] rfkill: Documentation and style fixes João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 20:11   ` Johannes Berg
2016-01-19 20:11     ` Johannes Berg
2016-01-19 20:19     ` João Paulo Rechi Vita [this message]
2016-01-19 20:19       ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 2/8] rfkill: Improve code readability João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 3/8] " João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 4/8] rfkill: Remove obsolete "claim" sysfs interface João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 5/8] rfkill: Remove obsolete "state" " João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 20:15   ` Johannes Berg
2016-01-19 20:36     ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 20:36       ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 20:44       ` Johannes Berg
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 6/8] rfkill: Move user_state_from_blocked() close to its user João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 7/8] rfkill: Update userspace API documentation João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42 ` [PATCH 8/8] rfkill: Factor common code João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 15:42   ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 17:39   ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-19 17:39     ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-19 20:32     ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 20:32       ` João Paulo Rechi Vita
2016-01-19 18:15   ` kbuild test robot
2016-01-26 13:08 ` [PATCH 0/8] General RFKill improvements Johannes Berg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CA+A7VXU3VDyMHWDjtqNgHDydCcEcEDFO-ZBGAZEz9CB2Lh1gPA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jprvita@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=jprvita@endlessm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@endlessm.com \
    --cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.