Message-ID: <1328653791.18150.5.camel@js-netbook>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM / Sleep: Initialize wakeup source locks in
 wakeup_source_add()
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, markgross@thegnar.org,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arve =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= <arve@android.com>,
        Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:29:51 -0800
In-Reply-To: <201202070201.58025.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <201202070200.55505.rjw@sisk.pl>
	 <201202070201.58025.rjw@sisk.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 919
Lines: 23

On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 02:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> 
> Initialize wakeup source locks in wakeup_source_add() instead of
> wakeup_source_create(), because otherwise the locks of the wakeup
> sources that haven't been allocated with wakeup_source_create()
> aren't initialized and handled properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>

Ah, I've shot myself in the foot before, forgetting to init the wakeup
source, so this should be good. Although, would a WARN_ON be better then
just initializing the lock in add? That way bad behavior is more likely
to be corrected, rather then just ignored.

thanks
-john

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/