Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: add might_sleep to PM runtime functions

From: Colin Cross
Date: Sat Jul 23 2011 - 21:55:17 EST

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, July 23, 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
>> >> The list of functions that can be called in atomic context is
>> >> non-intuitive (pm_runtime_put_sync can not, but
>> >> pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend can, if pm_runtime_irq_safe has
>> >> been called?).
>> >
>> > However, this behavior is documented.
>> >
>> > Also, if you have a clean use case for calling rpm_idle() with interrupts
>> > off, it can be modified to work in analogy with rpm_suspend() in that respect.
>> Yes, Kevin posted that patch in response to a bug that would never
>> have existed with this patch.  Even with Kevin's change, this patch
>> still detects drivers that are missing pm_runtime_irq_safe().
> I suggest that adding the annotations to __pm_runtime_idle(),
> __pm_runtime_suspend(), and __pm_runtime_resume() is entirely
> reasonable.  But the annotations to __pm_runtime_disable() and
> __pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() do seem unnecessary.

OK, I'll drop those.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at