Re: [PATCH] PM: runtime: Return -EINPROGRESS from rpm_resume() in the RPM_NOWAIT case

Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-09-22T19:34:02Z

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 9:32 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > The prospective callers of rpm_resume() passing RPM_NOWAIT to it may
> > be confused when it returns 0 without actually resuming the device
> > which may happen if the device is suspending at the given time and it
> > will only resume when the suspend in progress has completed. To avoid
> > that confusion, return -EINPROGRESS from rpm_resume() in that case.
> >
> > Since none of the current callers passing RPM_NOWAIT to rpm_resume()
> > check its return value, this change has no functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 7 +++++--
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> > @@ -792,10 +792,13 @@ static int rpm_resume(struct device *dev
> > DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> >
> > if (rpmflags & (RPM_ASYNC | RPM_NOWAIT)) {
>
> Hmmm, and what if a caller sets both of these flags? I guess in that
> case he gets what he deserves.

Exactly.

> > - if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING)
> > + if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDING) {
> > dev->power.deferred_resume = true;
> > - else
> > + if (rpmflags & RPM_NOWAIT)
> > + retval = -EINPROGRESS;
> > + } else {
> > retval = -EINPROGRESS;
> > + }
> > goto out;
> > }
>
> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

Thanks!