Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Clean up pm_runtime_disable()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday 29 January 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 29 January 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > - * If @check_resume is set and there's a resume request pending when
> > > > > > - * __pm_runtime_disable() is called and power.disable_depth is zero, the
> > > > > > - * function will wake up the device before disabling its run-time PM.
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > > -void __pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev, bool check_resume)
> > > > > > +void pm_runtime_disable(struct device *dev)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why did you decide to remove the check_resume argument?  That decision 
> > > > > should be explained in the patch description.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I thought the "which is not necessary any more" would be a sufficient
> > > > explanation ...
> > > 
> > > But why is it not necessary now,
> > 
> > Well, all of the existing callers use only one value of it, which is 'false'
> > (perhaps I should write that in the changelog).
> 
> I don't understand.  Isn't the existing version of pm_runtime_disable()
> a caller which sets check_resume to 'true'?  There certainly are places 
> that call pm_runtime_disable().

Sorry, you're absolutely right, so the patch is wrong.

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