On 07/09/2012 01:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 09, 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I noticed commit b8eec56cd8e5 ("PM / cpuidle: System resume hang fix with
>> cpuidle") in the pm tree needs some work (I noticed it because it was
>> changed in a rebase ...).
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> index a6b3f2e..b90ccb2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ extern void cpuidle_unregister_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev);
>>
>> extern void cpuidle_pause_and_lock(void);
>> extern void cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(void);
>> +extern void cpuidle_pause(void);
>> +extern void cpuidle_resume(void);
>> extern int cpuidle_enable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev);
>> extern void cpuidle_disable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev);
>> extern int cpuidle_wrap_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> @@ -169,6 +171,8 @@ static inline void cpuidle_unregister_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev) { }
>>
>> static inline void cpuidle_pause_and_lock(void) { }
>> static inline void cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(void) { }
>> +static inline cpuidle_pause(void) { }
>> +static inline cpuidle_resume(void) { }
>>
>> These need to be "static inline void". I wonder what review and build
>> testing this went through (the above should produce warnings since they
>> are non void returning functions with no return statements).
>
> Thanks for reporting this, I tried to fix a build issue in the original patch
I apologise for not having taken care of the above build scenario.
> hastily and failed miserably as you have noticed and then I build-tested a
> wrong tree. Sorry.
>
> It should be fixed now for real.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
Regards
Preeti
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
