On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 1:05 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:00 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > both in the I2C subsystem and also for Renesas drivers I maintain, I am > > > > > starting to get boilerplate patches doing some pm_runtime_put_* variant > > > > > because a failing pm_runtime_get is supposed to increase the ref > > > > > counters? Really? This feels wrong and unintuitive to me. > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is a well known issue with PM (I even have for a long time > > > > a coccinelle script, when I realized myself that there are a lot of > > > > cases like this, but someone else discovered this recently, like > > > > opening a can of worms). > > > > > > > > > I expect there > > > > > has been a discussion around it but I couldn't find it. > > > > > > > > Rafael explained (again) recently this. I can't find it quickly, unfortunately. > > > > > > I _think_ this discussion, but may be it's simple another tentacle of > > > the same octopus. > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/20200520095148.10995-1-dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Thanks, hadn't read that one! (so I was still at -1 from > > http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto ;-) > > > > So "pm_runtime_put_noidle()" is the (definitive?) one to pair with a > > pm_runtime_get_sync() failure? > > My biggest worry here is all those copycats jumping on the bandwagon, > and sending untested[*] patches that end up calling the wrong function. > > [*] Several of them turned out to introduce trivial compile warnings, so > I now consider all patches authored by the same person as untested. That's always a problem with janitors like patches... Once I tried to ask them to provide a testing material, but... - some maintainers just accept them without asking questions - some maintainers even defend them that they are doing a good job (and LWN top contributor statistics also motivate some of janitors, though I consider it not the best metrics) - practically almost no contributor answered to my queries, so, I consider all of them are untested independent to the name (if name appears in more than dozen patches, esp. in different subsystems) - and yes, it's a trade-off, some of the patches indeed useful. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
