On Monday, July 05, 2010, James Bottomley wrote:

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 08:41 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

quoted

sorry for the late reply, as I've been on vacation in the last week
(and shut off mails intentionally :)

Envy forbids me from saying that's OK.

quoted

At Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:44:48 -0500,
James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

Since every caller has to squirrel away the returned pointer anyway,
they might as well supply the memory area.  This fixes a bug in a few of
the call sites where the returned pointer was dereferenced without
checking it for NULL (which gets returned if the kzalloc failed).

I'd like to hear how sound and netdev feels about this: it will add
about two more pointers worth of data to struct netdev and struct
snd_pcm_substream .. but I think it's worth it.  If you're OK, I'll add
your acks and send through the pm tree.

This also looks to me like an android independent clean up (even though
it renders the request_add atomically callable).  I also added include
guards to include/linux/pm_qos_params.h

I like the patch very well, too.
But, just wondering...

quoted

@@ -262,6 +260,11 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
 	if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
 		return;
 
+	if (pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
+		WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object\n");
+		return;
+	}
+

Is this correct...?  Shouldn't it be a negative check?

Yes, it should be a negative check ... I'll update the patch.

I've already fixed it in my tree.

I guess this still means that no-one has managed to test it on a functional
system ...

Well, it's been for a while in linux-next ...

Rafael