lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] PM/runtime: handle ->runtime_suspend failure correctly
From
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 tom.leiming@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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.

Yes, I will update the commit log.

>
> 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.

Good idea, will update this in -v1.

thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-14 03:19    [W:0.063 / U:9.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site