On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 09:02:48AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 08:41 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
> > (and shut off mails intentionally :)
>
> Envy forbids me from saying that's OK.
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, it should be a negative check ... I'll update the patch. I guess
> this still means that no-one has managed to test it on a functional
> system ...
>
well I guess that explains the warning I got on my back port of this
patch.
[ 62.944788] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 62.944788] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:266
pm_qos_update_request+0x21/0x46)
[ 62.944788] pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object
[ 62.944788] Modules linked in: mrst_sspi cfspi_slave chnl_chr
caif_chr chnl_net caf
[ 62.944788] Pid: 91, comm: mrst/0 Tainted: G W 2.6.31.6-mrst
#30
[ 62.944788] Call Trace:
[ 62.944788] [<c0145b2e>] ? pm_qos_update_request+0x21/0x46
[ 62.944788] [<c012fff3>] warn_slowpath_common+0x60/0x77
[ 62.944788] [<c013003e>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x24/0x27
[ 62.944788] [<c0145b2e>] pm_qos_update_request+0x21/0x46
[ 62.944788] [<c03029f2>] int_transfer_complete_work+0x19/0x65
[ 62.944788] [<c013f02a>] worker_thread+0x153/0x1df
[ 62.944788] [<c03029d9>] ? int_transfer_complete_work+0x0/0x65
[ 62.944788] [<c0141df1>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x30
[ 62.944788] [<c0141c7c>] kthread+0x64/0x69
[ 62.944788] [<c013eed7>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x1df
[ 62.944788] [<c0141c18>] ? kthread+0x0/0x69
[ 62.944788] [<c01034df>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 62.944788] ---[ end trace 1723851b79e06c5d ]---
[ 62.944788] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 62.944788] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:266
Sorry, I've been swamped by work and personal things the past 2 weeks.
--mgross
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
