Hi,
sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
(and shut off mails intentionally :)
At Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:44:48 -0500,
James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Since every caller has to squirrel away the returned pointer anyway,
> they might as well supply the memory area. This fixes a bug in a few of
> the call sites where the returned pointer was dereferenced without
> checking it for NULL (which gets returned if the kzalloc failed).
>
> I'd like to hear how sound and netdev feels about this: it will add
> about two more pointers worth of data to struct netdev and struct
> snd_pcm_substream .. but I think it's worth it. If you're OK, I'll add
> your acks and send through the pm tree.
>
> This also looks to me like an android independent clean up (even though
> it renders the request_add atomically callable). I also added include
> guards to include/linux/pm_qos_params.h
I like the patch very well, too.
But, just wondering...
> @@ -262,6 +260,11 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
> if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
> return;
>
> + if (pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
> + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
Is this correct...? Shouldn't it be a negative check?
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
