On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 08:00 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 14:09 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > Wow, that function is fragile. It returns 0/1/-EINVAL, while being
> > > > documented for 0/1...
> > >
> > > Oh, it generally should return 1 for !psd.
> > >
> > > > Patch does not look obviously wrong, but maybe
> > > >
> > > > @@ -73,13 +73,17 @@ int dev_pm_put_subsys_data(struct device *dev)
> > > >
> > > > if (--psd->refcount == 0) {
> > > > dev->power.subsys_data = NULL;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> > > > - kfree(psd);
> > > > - ret = 1;
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Would be cleaner.
> > >
> > > What about this:
> >
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
>
> Rafael/Pavel,
>
> I redid the patch based on Pavel's comments and just about to send it
> and then I saw your exchange. This version looks good to me. Do you want
> me to test the patch and resend?
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
I sent v2 patch that incorporates the comments from Rafael and Pavel.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Shuah Khan Lead Kernel Developer - Open Source Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 672-0658
