On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Carsten Mattner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Carsten Mattner wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suspect the problem has been there all along, but it simply wasn't
> > > > reported until commit 71723f95463d ("PM / runtime: print error when
> > > > activating a child to unactive parent") was merged in 4.8-rc1.
> > >
> > > Is this just a false positive or a real error that had been silently
> > > ignored all this time?
> >
> > It's a real error, albeit one that is quite unlikely to cause any real
> > harm. That's why nobody noticed it until the warning message was
> > added.
>
> Just to be clear, your patch doesn't hide the error but merely silences
> the safe-to-ignore condition after trying a little harder, right?
I don't understand what you mean by "silences the safe-to-ignore
condition" or "trying a little harder". The patch fixes a real bug --
it prevents the interface from going into runtime suspend at the wrong
time.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
