On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:51:19AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:
>
> > > The "if (err == -EAGAIN)" test and the call to pm_schedule_suspend seem
> > > to have been dropped since v8 of this series. It looks like they ought
> > > to be moved into sdev_runtime_suspend.
> >
> > I thought they were no longer needed...
>
> You did not mention this in the patch description.
Sorry about that.
>
> > For sd, we have request based rutime PM and the PM core will always try
> > to autosuspend the device with the timer; and for sr, the poll will
> > trigger suspend constantly.
>
> What if the poll has been disabled?
>
> > And for both, we don't return -EAGAIN anyway.
> > So I suppose that code is not necessary?
>
> You could replace it with WARN_ON(err == -EAGAIN). That way if some
> SCSI driver does return -EAGAIN in the future, people will know
> something is wrong.
Placing a WARN_ON there seems to suggest drivers should not return
-EAGAIN, so I think I'll just add back those dropped code to
sdev_runtime_suspend as you have suggested like this:
static int sdev_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
const struct dev_pm_ops *pm = dev->driver ? dev->driver->pm : NULL;
int (*cb)(struct device *) = pm ? pm->runtime_suspend : NULL;
struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
int ret;
if (sdev->request_queue->dev)
return sdev_blk_runtime_suspend(sdev, cb);
ret = scsi_dev_type_suspend(dev, cb);
if (ret == -EAGAIN)
pm_schedule_suspend(dev, jiffies_to_msecs(
round_jiffies_up_relative(HZ/10)));
return ret;
}
Does this look OK?
>
> > BTW, I'll be on vocation till 02/17, and I don't have access to the
> > internet in my hometown, but please feel free to drop any comments and
> > I'll check them when I get back.
>
> I'm going on vacation next week too. Enjoy your trip.
Thanks, the trip was great.
-Aaron
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
