On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:03:18AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On 30/05/10 06:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Saturday 29 May 2010, mark gross wrote: > >>The following patch is to help clean up API abusers of pm_qos where > >>they call update_request before registering a request. > >> > >>--mgross > >> > >>--Signed-off-by: markgross<markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Will there be a big issue if I push this during the next merge window? > > What's the point to the patch? That is: why is calling > update_request before registering a request such a big problem that > it demands a WARN() and dump stack? If e1000e realy needs the latency set and makes assumptions that its done its part, I would like to let them know that they have not registerd the request they thought they did. --mgross > > Regards, > > Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
