RE: [PATCH 3/4] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace is enabled

[Chen, Yu C]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo.kernel....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ingo
> Molnar
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:18 PM
> To: John Stultz
> Cc: lkml; Chen, Yu C; Rafael J. Wysocki; Xunlei Pang; Ingo Molnar; Len Brown; 
> H.
> Peter Anvin; Pavel Machek; Thomas Gleixner; Prarit Bhargava; Richard Cochran
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace
> is enabled
> 
> 
> * John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > +static int pm_trace_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > +                           unsigned long mode, void *_unused) {
> > +   switch (mode) {
> > +   case PM_POST_HIBERNATION:
> > +   case PM_POST_SUSPEND:
> > +           if (pm_trace_rtc_abused) {
> > +                   pm_trace_rtc_abused = false;
> > +                   pr_warn("Possible incorrect RTC due to pm_trace,"
> > +                           "please use ntp-date or rdate to reset.\n");
> 
> Please don't break user-visible strings just to pacify checkpatch!
> 
> The bogus linebreak above hides a type in the user string:
> 
>   Possible incorrect RTC due to pm_trace,please use ntp-date or rdate to 
> reset.
> 
> (There's a missing space after the comma.)
> 
> Best practice is to preserve the continuous nature of the user string in the 
> code.
> 
> In addition to that, please quote suggested command names, i.e. something 
> like:
> 
>   Possible incorrect RTC due to pm_trace, please use 'ntp-date' or 'rdate' to
> reset it.
OK, will do.
> 
> > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> > @@ -191,6 +191,13 @@ static inline void cmos_write_bank2(unsigned char
> > val, unsigned char addr)
> >
> >  static int cmos_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *t)  {
> > +   /*
> > +    * If pmtrace abused the RTC for storage tell the caller that it is
> > +    * unusable.
> > +    */
> > +   if (!pm_trace_rtc_valid())
> > +           return -EIO;
> 
> Please standardize the spelling of 'pm_trace', as there's 3 variants present 
> in
> this patch alone:
> 
>   'pm_trace'
>   'pm trace'
>   'pmtrace'
OK, will do.
> 
> (Not to mention pm-trace.h - but that's a pre-existing inconsistency unrelated
> to your patch.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>       Ingo

Thanks!