On Monday, July 05, 2010, 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've already fixed it in my tree.
> I guess this still means that no-one has managed to test it on a functional
> system ...
Well, it's been for a while in linux-next ...
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
