On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Saturday, July 23, 2011, Colin Cross wrote: >> >> The list of functions that can be called in atomic context is >> >> non-intuitive (pm_runtime_put_sync can not, but >> >> pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend can, if pm_runtime_irq_safe has >> >> been called?). >> > >> > However, this behavior is documented. >> > >> > Also, if you have a clean use case for calling rpm_idle() with interrupts >> > off, it can be modified to work in analogy with rpm_suspend() in that respect. >> >> Yes, Kevin posted that patch in response to a bug that would never >> have existed with this patch. Even with Kevin's change, this patch >> still detects drivers that are missing pm_runtime_irq_safe(). > > I suggest that adding the annotations to __pm_runtime_idle(), > __pm_runtime_suspend(), and __pm_runtime_resume() is entirely > reasonable. But the annotations to __pm_runtime_disable() and > __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() do seem unnecessary. OK, I'll drop those. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
