>>> Calling pm_runtime_get_sync increments the counter even in case of >>> failure, causing incorrect ref count. Call pm_runtime_put if >>> pm_runtime_get_sync fails. >> >> Is it appropriate to copy a sentence from the change description >> into the patch subject? >> >> How do you think about a wording variant like the following? >> >> The PM runtime reference counter is generally incremented by a call of >> the function “pm_runtime_get_sync”. >> Thus call the function “pm_runtime_put” also in two error cases >> to keep the reference counting consistent. > > IMHO the important part is "even in case of failure", which you dropped. > Missing that point was the root cause of the issue being fixed. > Hence I prefer the original description, FWIW. Would you like to comment any more of the presented patch review concerns? Can it make sense to combine any adjustments into a single patch according to the discussed software transformation pattern? https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?submitter=26544&state=*&q=engine%3A+stm32&archive=both Regards, Markus
