Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:58:02 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / wakeup: Remove timer from wakeup_source_remove() |
| |
On 11-03-19, 13:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, March 8, 2019 10:53:11 AM CET Viresh Kumar wrote: > > wakeup_source_remove() is the counterpart of wakeup_source_add() helper > > and must undo the initializations done by wakeup_source_add(). Currently > > the timer is initialized by wakeup_source_add() but removed from > > wakeup_source_drop(), which doesn't look logically correct. Also it > > should be okay to call wakeup_source_add() right after calling > > wakeup_source_remove(), and in that case we may end up calling > > timer_setup() for a potentially scheduled timer which is surely > > incorrect. > > > > Move the timer removal part to wakeup_source_remove() instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c > > index f1fee72ed970..18333962e3da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c > > @@ -118,7 +118,6 @@ void wakeup_source_drop(struct wakeup_source *ws) > > if (!ws) > > return; > > > > - del_timer_sync(&ws->timer); > > __pm_relax(ws); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_drop); > > @@ -205,6 +204,8 @@ void wakeup_source_remove(struct wakeup_source *ws) > > list_del_rcu(&ws->entry); > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&events_lock, flags); > > synchronize_srcu(&wakeup_srcu); > > + > > + del_timer_sync(&ws->timer); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_remove); > > > > > > I've merged it with the [2/2], rewritten the subject and changelog and > queued the result as commit d856f39ac1cc ("PM / wakeup: Rework wakeup > source timer cancellation").
Okay, thanks. We (Android guys) want this to be backported into 4.4+ kernels via the stable tree. Can we mark this for stable in the commit itself ? Else I would be required to send this separately for all the kernels. I should have marked it for stable initially though, sorry about forgetting then.
-- viresh
| |