On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Carsten Mattner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Carsten Mattner wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I suspect the problem has been there all along, but it simply wasn't
>> > > > reported until commit 71723f95463d ("PM / runtime: print error when
>> > > > activating a child to unactive parent") was merged in 4.8-rc1.
>> > >
>> > > Is this just a false positive or a real error that had been silently
>> > > ignored all this time?
>> >
>> > It's a real error, albeit one that is quite unlikely to cause any real
>> > harm.  That's why nobody noticed it until the warning message was
>> > added.
>>
>> Just to be clear, your patch doesn't hide the error but merely silences
>> the safe-to-ignore condition after trying a little harder, right?
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "silences the safe-to-ignore
> condition" or "trying a little harder".  The patch fixes a real bug --
> it prevents the interface from going into runtime suspend at the wrong
> time.

I thought you meant it's a hardware/firmware fault and the fix works
around it, that's why I assumed it's a detect-and-ignore-try-again
scheme.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to