On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:38:07PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:38:40 -0800, > mark gross wrote: > > > > --- a/sound/core/pcm_native.c > > +++ b/sound/core/pcm_native.c > (snip) > > @@ -506,8 +508,8 @@ static int snd_pcm_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) > > if (substream->ops->hw_free) > > result = substream->ops->hw_free(substream); > > runtime->status->state = SNDRV_PCM_STATE_OPEN; > > - pm_qos_remove_requirement(PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY, > > - substream->latency_id); > > + pm_qos_remove_request(substream->latency_pm_qos_req); > > The NULL check seems needed in the caller side because > pm_qos_remove_request() doesn't do it. ouch. Thanks for noticing this. > > Or, would you add a NULL check in pm_qos_remove_request()? > It'd be more handy. I can make the pm_qos_remove_request null pointer safe, its assumed to be a slow path so it would be a good thing to do. I'll add this to the next patch set that the e1000e guys are making me do against linux-next. Thanks! --mgross > > > thanks, > > Takashi _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
