From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pm_qos: get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request() Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:45:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1277916334.30401.10.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> References: <1277746434.10879.191.camel@mulgrave.site> <1277747088.10879.201.camel@mulgrave.site> <201006282359.18045.rjw@sisk.pl> <1277763049.10879.204.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Takashi Iwai , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, markgross@thegnar.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1277763049.10879.204.camel@mulgrave.site> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > 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