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

James Bottomley
2010-07-05T14:02:54Z

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 08:41 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
> (and shut off mails intentionally :)

Envy forbids me from saying that's OK.

> At Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:44:48 -0500,
> 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
>
> I like the patch very well, too.
> But, just wondering...
>
> > @@ -262,6 +260,11 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
> > if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
> > return;
> >
> > + if (pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
> > + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Is this correct...? Shouldn't it be a negative check?

Yes, it should be a negative check ... I'll update the patch. I guess
this still means that no-one has managed to test it on a functional
system ...

James