> -----Original Message----- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@sisk.pl] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:42 PM > To: Ohad Ben-Cohen; Liu, Chuansheng > Cc: Li, Fei; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] hwspinlock/core: call pm_runtime_put in > pm_runtime_get_sync failed case > > 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 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); > > > > > > > > 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 for your feedback. I'll upload patch V2 for this topic. Thanks, Fei > Thanks, > Rafael > > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I