Re: [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request()

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>]

On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 23:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 28, 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Since every caller has to squirrel away the returned pointer anyway,
> > > they might as well supply the memory area.  This fixes a bug in a few of
> > > the call sites where the returned pointer was dereferenced without
> > > checking it for NULL (which gets returned if the kzalloc failed).
> > > 
> > > I'd like to hear how sound and netdev feels about this: it will add
> > > about two more pointers worth of data to struct netdev and struct
> > > snd_pcm_substream .. but I think it's worth it.  If you're OK, I'll add
> > > your acks and send through the pm tree.
> > > 
> > > This also looks to me like an android independent clean up (even though
> > > it renders the request_add atomically callable).  I also added include
> > > guards to include/linux/pm_qos_params.h
> > > 
> > > cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> > > cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
> > 
> > I like all of the patches in this series, thanks a lot for doing this!
> > 
> > I guess it might be worth sending a CC to the LKML next round so that people
> > can see [1/3] (I don't expect any objections, but anyway it would be nice).
> 
> I cc'd the latest owners of plist.h ... although Daniel Walker has
> apparently since left MontaVista, Thomas Gleixner is still current ...
> and he can speak for the RT people, who are the primary plist users.
> 
> I can do another round and cc lkml, I was just hoping this would be the
> last revision.

I'm still paying attention tho .. I didn't see anything objection worthy
in the plist changes.. If you do send another round you might want to
add Oleg Nesterov , most of the code was redone by him ..

Daniel