On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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"?
I'm suggesting we leave pm_runtime_get_sync() alone but we add a new
function which called pm_runtime_get_sync_resume() which does something
like this:
static inline int pm_runtime_get_sync_resume(struct device *dev)
{
int ret;
ret = __pm_runtime_resume(dev, RPM_GET_PUT);
if (ret < 0) {
pm_runtime_put(dev);
return ret;
}
return 0;
}
I'm not sure if pm_runtime_put() is the correct thing to do? The other
thing is that this always returns zero on success. I don't know that
drivers ever care to differentiate between one and zero returns.
Then if any of the caller expect that behavior we update them to use the
new function.
regards,
dan carpenter
