> > Can you point me to a discussion where it was decided that this is a > proper fix? I'd think we rather should fix pm_runtime_get_sync() but > maybe there are technical reasons against it. > There is a discussion here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/20/1100 There are many use cases that suppose pm_runtime_get_sync() will always increment the usage counter and do not check its return value. So I don't think we should adjust this function directly. As for this API, Dan suggested a replacement (wrapper) for later developers. I think this is the best solution. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1245375/ Regards, Dinghao
