On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:44:06 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:33 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:25:52 -0500 > > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, pm_qos_remove now needs a flush_scheduled work since you don't > > > want to return until the list is clear (since the next action may be to > > > free the object). > > > > The work-items are allocated in the pm_qos objects (which get never > > freed), so we should be fine there. > > That's not a safe assumption. Once we get into drivers, timers and cpu > ilde states, I can see these things being in modules. > > Regardless, it's bad programming practise to be using something after > the final remove is called, it certainly violates the principle of least > surprise and would usually eventually cause problems. > > James > I absolutely defer to you in this question. But there is no pm_qos_remove at the moment, as far as I see? Should I add one? When and how would it be called? Maybe I'm not understanding you right at the moment. Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
