On 8/3/22 7:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:00:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:On 8/3/22 1:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:From: ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx> Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync and pm_runtime_put_noidle. Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644 --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev) if (!id) return -ENODEV; - retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev); + retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev); if (retval < 0) { - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev); return retval; } -- 2.25.1Now this is just being silly. Consider all future emails also dropped.No Greg, please don't do this, or please undo this. This happened because the original poster was not a subscriber to the greybus-dev mailing list. Such messages get held until someone (me) releases them after picking them out from the mostly spam that is caught and held. I have been trying to do that daily lately but it's still not enough to avoid this happening. You were on the original addressee list. So you got the message immediately. But the mailing list filter held it and sent it again when I released it yesterday. This is why you saw it the second time. Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.Ah, ok. But they did send a number of patches like this while after I had sent my first request to not do patches in this format anymore, which is what caused my response here.
I might have been mistaken. The message was sent on two consecutive days. But the second might have been sent because the first got held up in the queue until I released. Anyway, Ye Xingchen, you should know not to re-send this patch until you have at least reviewed Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst, as Greg suggested. In fact, you should *not* re-post this patch at all. Someone else from your organization posted exactly the same thing in April and it was rejected. https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yl+948unOoDFdLe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I would say your Zeal Robot needs to be taught that sometimes there are exceptions to the "rules" it is trying to enforce. -Alex
thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list -- greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to greybus-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list -- greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to greybus-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|