On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:49:04AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 14-03-18 23:38, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:23:12PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > >We're quite far into the cycle already and this is a serious regression, > > >also nothing of great value is lost by the revert, the original commit > > >was a minor cleanup which turns out to have bad side-effects, a simple > > >revert really is the best solution here, esp. in this point of the cycle. > > > > Just an hour ago he sent me the patch to look over it. And we're at > > least two and a half weeks away from v4.16. > > No we are *only* two and a half weeks away from v4.16 (worst case scenario) > and Linus does not like getting last minute fixes. That doesn't preclude allowing a few hours to discuss things. There is never such a rush. In the present case, a new contributor was willing to debug the issue and submit a patch. Onboarding new contributors is important and IMO it's worth waiting a few days for them to sort things out, even if it means a regression stays present a little longer. I'm sorry that it meant you wasted time debugging it in parallel. That said, when submitting the patch I clearly failed to notice that for devices using autosuspend, pm_request_resume() doesn't update the last usage timestamp. While that could be fixed by calling pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() before pm_request_resume(), it doesn't seem to be customary as a look at all the call sites of pm_request_resume() shows. The original three-line sequence, although quite verbose, appears to be what is commonly used in such a case. For this reason reverting back to the original version seems justified. Thanks, Lukas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
