Sorry, I misunderstood your idea before. A new function is the best solution for this problem.
Regards, Dinghao "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>写道： > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:42:56PM +0800, dinghao....@zju.edu.cn wrote: > > We need to make sure if pm_runtime_get_sync() is designed with > > such behavior before modifying it. > > > > I received a response from Rafael when I commited a similar patch: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/20/1100 > > It seems that this behavior is intentional and needs to be kept. > > Yes. This is why I have said twice or three times to not change > pm_runtime_get_sync() but instead to write a replacement. > > A large percent of the callers are buggy. The pm_runtime_get_sync() is > a -4 on Rusty's API scale. > http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto > One could argue that anything above a -4 is really a 2 if you read > the implementation thouroughly enough... > > regards, > dan carpenter > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
