[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] PM/runtime: handle ->runtime_suspend failure correctly
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 wrote:

> From: Ming Lei <>
> If ->runtime_suspend returns -EAGAIN or -EBUSY, the device should
> still be in ACTIVE state, so it is not needed to handle defered
> resume and idle notification to its parent; if ->runtime_suspend
> returns other fatal failure, it doesn't make sense to process defered
> resume and send idle notification to its parent.

> @@ -422,6 +425,9 @@ static int rpm_suspend(struct device *dev, int rpmflags)
> }
> wake_up_all(&dev->power.wait_queue);
> + if (retval)
> + goto out;
> +
> if (dev->power.deferred_resume) {
> rpm_resume(dev, 0);
> retval = -EAGAIN;

If there's a suspend failure, the deferred_resume flag gets turned off
anyway. But skipping this test won't hurt, and skipping the parent
notification is a good idea.

In fact, it might be even better to put a copy of the wake_up_all() in
the "if (retval)" branch after the suspend callback and then go
directly to out. The "else" branch could then become part of the
straight-through code, not indented.

Alan Stern

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-11 22:47    [W:0.051 / U:1.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site