On Thu, 04 Jan 2024, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be a mostly opaque cookie to its
>> users. It should only be checked for being non-zero and set to
>> zero. Debug logging its actual value is meaningless. Switch
Hi Jani,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be a mostly opaque cookie to its
> users. It should only be checked for being non-zero and set to
> zero. Debug logging its actual value is meaningless. Switch to just
> debug logging whether
On 04.01.2024 17:46, Jani Nikula wrote:
intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be a mostly opaque cookie to its
users. It should only be checked for being non-zero and set to
zero. Debug logging its actual value is meaningless. Switch to just
debug logging whether the async_put_wakeref is non-zero.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be a mostly opaque cookie to its
> users. It should only be checked for being non-zero and set to
> zero. Debug logging its actual value is meaningless. Switch to just
> debug logging whether the
intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be a mostly opaque cookie to its
users. It should only be checked for being non-zero and set to
zero. Debug logging its actual value is meaningless. Switch to just
debug logging whether the async_put_wakeref is non-zero.
The issue dates back to much earlier than
