On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:42:55AM +0800, dinghao.liu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Hi, Dan, > > > > I agree the best solution is to fix __pm_runtime_resume(). But there are also > > many cases that assume pm_runtime_get_sync() will change PM usage > > counter on error. According to my static analysis results, the number of these > > "right" cases are larger. Adjusting __pm_runtime_resume() directly will introduce > > more new bugs. Therefore I think we should resolve the "bug" cases individually. > > > > That's why I was saying that we may need to introduce a new replacement > function for pm_runtime_get_sync() that works as expected. > > There is no reason why we have to live with the old behavior. What exactly do you mean by "the old behavior"?
