From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: preeti Subject: Re: linux-next: comment on pm tree commit Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:59:07 +0530 Message-ID: <4FFAA463.1020608@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120709094013.88a1117c9ef4510555147280@canb.auug.org.au> <201207091024.34585.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.1]:43138 "EHLO e28smtp01.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751764Ab2GIJSD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:18:03 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:47:58 +0530 In-Reply-To: <201207091024.34585.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Stephen Rothwell , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On 07/09/2012 01:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, July 09, 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> I noticed commit b8eec56cd8e5 ("PM / cpuidle: System resume hang fix with >> cpuidle") in the pm tree needs some work (I noticed it because it was >> changed in a rebase ...). >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h >> index a6b3f2e..b90ccb2 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h >> +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h >> @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ extern void cpuidle_unregister_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev); >> >> extern void cpuidle_pause_and_lock(void); >> extern void cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(void); >> +extern void cpuidle_pause(void); >> +extern void cpuidle_resume(void); >> extern int cpuidle_enable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev); >> extern void cpuidle_disable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev); >> extern int cpuidle_wrap_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> @@ -169,6 +171,8 @@ static inline void cpuidle_unregister_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev) { } >> >> static inline void cpuidle_pause_and_lock(void) { } >> static inline void cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(void) { } >> +static inline cpuidle_pause(void) { } >> +static inline cpuidle_resume(void) { } >> >> These need to be "static inline void". I wonder what review and build >> testing this went through (the above should produce warnings since they >> are non void returning functions with no return statements). > > Thanks for reporting this, I tried to fix a build issue in the original patch I apologise for not having taken care of the above build scenario. > hastily and failed miserably as you have noticed and then I build-tested a > wrong tree. Sorry. > > It should be fixed now for real. > > Thanks, > Rafael > Regards Preeti