From: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync
and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
--- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
+++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
@@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
if (!id)
return -ENODEV;
- retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
+ retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
if (retval < 0) {
- pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
return retval;
}
--
2.25.1
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> From: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
>
> Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync
> and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
>
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
> --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
> if (!id)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> - retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
> + retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
> if (retval < 0) {
> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
> return retval;
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
Now this is just being silly. Consider all future emails also dropped.
greg k-h
On 8/3/22 1:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
>>
>> Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync
>> and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
>>
>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
>> index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
>> @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
>> if (!id)
>> return -ENODEV;
>>
>> - retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
>> + retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
>> if (retval < 0) {
>> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
>> return retval;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>
> Now this is just being silly. Consider all future emails also dropped.
No Greg, please don't do this, or please undo this.
This happened because the original poster was not a subscriber to the
greybus-dev mailing list. Such messages get held until someone (me)
releases them after picking them out from the mostly spam that is
caught and held. I have been trying to do that daily lately but
it's still not enough to avoid this happening.
You were on the original addressee list. So you got the message
immediately. But the mailing list filter held it and sent it
again when I released it yesterday. This is why you saw it the
second time.
Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.
-Alex
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> greybus-dev mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:00:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 8/3/22 1:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > > From: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync
> > > and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
> > > if (!id)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > - retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > + retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > if (retval < 0) {
> > > - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > return retval;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> >
> > Now this is just being silly. Consider all future emails also dropped.
>
>
> No Greg, please don't do this, or please undo this.
>
> This happened because the original poster was not a subscriber to the
> greybus-dev mailing list. Such messages get held until someone (me)
> releases them after picking them out from the mostly spam that is
> caught and held. I have been trying to do that daily lately but
> it's still not enough to avoid this happening.
>
> You were on the original addressee list. So you got the message
> immediately. But the mailing list filter held it and sent it
> again when I released it yesterday. This is why you saw it the
> second time.
>
> Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.
Ah, ok. But they did send a number of patches like this while after I
had sent my first request to not do patches in this format anymore,
which is what caused my response here.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 8/3/22 7:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.
> Ah, ok. But they did send a number of patches like this while after I
> had sent my first request to not do patches in this format anymore,
> which is what caused my response here.
I didn't realize that. That explains why your response was
"Please follow researcher-guidelines.rst." I didn't initially
understand why it was that instead of something more directed
at the content of the patch.
I *thought* it might be because "Zeal Robot" might be something
new, and so considered experimental?
Anyway, I think we're clear now. Thanks.
-Alex
On 8/3/22 7:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:00:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 8/3/22 1:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> From: ye xingchen <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of pm_runtime_get_sync
>>>> and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
>>>> index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
>>>> @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
>>>> if (!id)
>>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>> - retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
>>>> + retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
>>>> if (retval < 0) {
>>>> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
>>>> return retval;
>>>> }
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>>> Now this is just being silly. Consider all future emails also dropped.
>>
>>
>> No Greg, please don't do this, or please undo this.
>>
>> This happened because the original poster was not a subscriber to the
>> greybus-dev mailing list. Such messages get held until someone (me)
>> releases them after picking them out from the mostly spam that is
>> caught and held. I have been trying to do that daily lately but
>> it's still not enough to avoid this happening.
>>
>> You were on the original addressee list. So you got the message
>> immediately. But the mailing list filter held it and sent it
>> again when I released it yesterday. This is why you saw it the
>> second time.
>>
>> Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.
>
> Ah, ok. But they did send a number of patches like this while after I
> had sent my first request to not do patches in this format anymore,
> which is what caused my response here.
I might have been mistaken. The message was sent on two consecutive
days. But the second might have been sent because the first got
held up in the queue until I released.
Anyway, Ye Xingchen, you should know not to re-send this patch until
you have at least reviewed Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst,
as Greg suggested.
In fact, you should *not* re-post this patch at all. Someone else
from your organization posted exactly the same thing in April and it
was rejected.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
I would say your Zeal Robot needs to be taught that sometimes there
are exceptions to the "rules" it is trying to enforce.
-Alex
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> greybus-dev mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]