Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-23553-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <10423008.nUPlyArG6x@kreacher> <ZZ5zcBBEv7qupIdE@linux.intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gp6uETgLNHxDnSd4h_0ois7J2AC7soJJVv18B99GmxcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZZ6kDVD3p4KdR9Cs@linux.intel.com> <ZZ+fiUZolz3jogcE@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZZ+fiUZolz3jogcE@linux.intel.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:01:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j4chSHHiJYaxPuCcH8qM_yRd8y2FwtEL-Yp77Uq5RU3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: sleep: Restore asynchronous device resume optimization
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 8:58=E2=80=AFAM Stanislaw Gruszka
<stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:05:07PM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:33:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I would consider different naming just to make clear this
> > > > is regarding async call, in_progress looks too generic for me.
> > >
> > > OK, what about async_in_progress?
> > Sure, that better.
>
> Even better would be using_async IMO, because we don't know if
> async call is in progress or finish or before start.

Well, "in progress" applies to all of the processing of the async call
and I regard it as "in progress" once it is known that it will run
asynchronously eventually.

In any case, I've already applied the async_in_progress version, thanks!