Em Wed, 05 May 2021 14:56:40 +0100
"Rui Miguel Silva" <rmfrfs@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Hi,
> On Wed May 5, 2021 at 12:06 PM WEST, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 May 2021 11:41:52 +0200
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The pm_runtime_get_sync() internally increments the
> > > dev->power.usage_count without decrementing it, even on errors.
> > > Replace it by the new pm_runtime_resume_and_get(), introduced by:
> > > commit dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to deal with usage counter")
> > > in order to properly decrement the usage counter, avoiding
> > > a potential PM usage counter leak.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Not a fix as far as I can see, just a cleanup - so perhaps not this set?
>
> yes, the original changelog of this patch, that I acked, made it
> clear it was a cleanup:
>
> "
> Commit dd8088d5a896 ("PM: runtime: Add pm_runtime_resume_and_get to
> deal with usage counter")
> added pm_runtime_resume_and_get() in order to automatically handle
> dev->power.usage_count decrement on errors.
>
> Use the new API, in order to cleanup the error check logic.
> "
>
> This one above is new, but I saw Mauro is going change it.
Yes, I'll change the subject/description to the
"use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()" one on this patch, as there's
no issue to be fixed here, just a cleanup ;-)
Sorry for the mess. I did lots of rebase on ~80 patch series
over the last couple of days, based on the reviews (and my own
internal reviews)...
See, the current patchset has ~80 patches with ~30% contained
fixes. It shows that writing a balanced PM runtime code is not
so trivial ;-)
Thanks,
Mauro
