lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] PM/runtime: handle ->runtime_suspend failure correctly
    Date
    On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Ming Lei wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > 2011/10/11 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
    > > On Sunday, October 09, 2011, tom.leiming@gmail.com wrote:
    > >> From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
    > >>
    > >> If ->runtime_suspend returns -EAGAIN or -EBUSY, the device should
    > >> still be in ACTIVE state, so it is not needed to send idle notification
    > >> to its parent; if ->runtime_suspend returns other fatal failure, it
    > >> doesn't make sense to send idle notification to its parent.
    > >>
    > >> So skip these when failure is returned from ->runtime_suspend, also add
    > >> comments for this handling in rpm_suspend.
    > >>
    > >> This patch also updates comments for rpm_suspend:
    > >>
    > >> - 'Cancel a pending idle notification' should be put before, also
    > >> should be changed as 'Cancel a pending idle notification or
    > >> autosuspend/suspend'
    > >
    > > That should be a different patch I think?
    >
    > OK, I will split it into two.
    >
    > >
    > >> - idle notification for suspend failure has been removed, so update
    > >> comments for it
    > >>
    > >> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
    > >> ---
    > >> v1: some minor change on Alan's suggestion
    > >> ---
    > >> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
    > >> 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
    > >>
    > >> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
    > >> index 441b5a3..e3c6a8f 100644
    > >> --- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
    > >> +++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
    > >> @@ -284,14 +284,17 @@ static int rpm_callback(int (*cb)(struct device *), struct device *dev)
    > >> * @dev: Device to suspend.
    > >> * @rpmflags: Flag bits.
    > >> *
    > >> - * Check if the device's runtime PM status allows it to be suspended. If
    > >> - * another suspend has been started earlier, either return immediately or wait
    > >> - * for it to finish, depending on the RPM_NOWAIT and RPM_ASYNC flags. Cancel a
    > >> - * pending idle notification. If the RPM_ASYNC flag is set then queue a
    > >> - * suspend request; otherwise run the ->runtime_suspend() callback directly.
    > >> - * If a deferred resume was requested while the callback was running then carry
    > >> - * it out; otherwise send an idle notification for the device (if the suspend
    > >> - * failed) or for its parent (if the suspend succeeded).
    > >> + * Check if the device's runtime PM status allows it to be suspended. Cancel
    > >> + * a pending idle notification or autosuspend/suspend. If another suspend has
    > >> + * been started earlier, either return immediately or wait for it to finish,
    > >> + * depending on the RPM_NOWAIT and RPM_ASYNC flags. If the RPM_ASYNC flag is
    > >> + * set then queue a suspend request; otherwise run the ->runtime_suspend()
    > >> + * callback directly. If ->runtime_suspend returns failure, just cancel
    > >> + * pending request and wake up waited tasks, then return immediatelly.
    > >> + * After ->runtime_suspend succeeded, if a deferred resume was requested
    > >> + * while the callback was running then carry it out; otherwise send an idle
    > >> + * notification for its parent (if both ignore_children and irq_safe
    > >> + * are not set).
    > >> *
    > >> * This function must be called under dev->power.lock with interrupts disabled.
    > >> */
    > >> @@ -410,15 +413,16 @@ static int rpm_suspend(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
    > >> dev->power.runtime_error = 0;
    > >> else
    > >> pm_runtime_cancel_pending(dev);
    > >> - } else {
    > >> + wake_up_all(&dev->power.wait_queue);
    > >> + goto out;
    > >> + }
    > >> no_callback:
    > >
    > > I don't think the change above is correct. The code below
    > > no_callback only should be executed if retval is zero.
    >
    > The 'goto out' above no_callback will bypass this, won't it?

    Yes, it will, sorry. It seems I was confused by the removal of
    "} else {".

    OK, so this is technically correct.

    Please resubmit with the unrelated comment changes splitted out.

    Thanks,
    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-11 21:13    [W:0.035 / U:32.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site