public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Prevent dpm_prepare() from returning errors unnecessarily
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:52:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201011282352.10498.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1011281031240.27303-100000@netrider.rowland.org>

On Sunday, November 28, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > 
> > Currently dpm_prepare() returns error code if it finds that a device
> > being suspended has a pending runtime resume request.  However, it
> > should not do that if the checking for wakeup events is not enabled.
> 
> It doesn't.  The line you changed _does_ check device_may_wakeup().

That's not the point.  The problem is that it shouldn't abort suspend
when events_check_enabled is unset.

> > On the other hand, if the checking for wakeup events is enabled, it
> > can return error when a wakeup event is detected, regardless of its
> > source.
> 
> Will adding this call to pm_wakeup_event() end up double-counting some 
> events?

Yes, it will, if the event has already been reported by the subsystem or driver.

I don't think it's a very big issue and I'm not sure trying to avoid it is
worth the effort (we can check if the device's wakeup source object is active
and skip reporting the wakeup event in that case, but that doesn't guarantee
that the event won't be counted twice anyway).

Thanks,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-28 22:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-28 12:12 [PATCH] PM: Prevent dpm_prepare() from returning errors unnecessarily Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-11-28 15:35 ` Alan Stern
2010-11-28 22:52   ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2010-11-29  3:05     ` Alan Stern
2010-11-29 22:04       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-11-30 15:13         ` Alan Stern
2010-11-30 22:27           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-01 15:15             ` Alan Stern
2010-12-01 23:50               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-12-02 15:38                 ` Alan Stern
2010-12-02 19:42                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-11-30 13:07 ` Ming Lei
2010-11-30 22:23   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201011282352.10498.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox