linux-next: comment on pm tree commit

linux-next: comment on pm tree commit

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

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).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: comment on pm tree commit

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

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
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

Re: linux-next: comment on pm tree commit

[preeti]

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