On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 07:37:54PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-06-26 08:44, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:07:51AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> As far as I know runtime power management support in the sd driver is
> >> working
> >> fine and is being used intensively by the UFS driver. The following commit
> >> was
> >> submitted to fix a bug encountered by an UFS developer: 05d18ae1cc8a
> >> ("scsi:
> >> pm: Balance pm_only counter of request queue during system resume") # v5.7.
> >
> > I just looked at that commit for the first time.
> >
> > Instead of making the SCSI driver do the work of deciding what routine to
> > call, why not redefine blk_set_runtime_active(q) to simply call
> > blk_post_runtime_resume(q, 0)? Or vice versa: if err == 0 have
> > blk_post_runtime_resume call blk_set_runtime_active?
> >
> > After all, the two routines do almost the same thing -- and the bug
> > addressed by this commit was caused by the difference in their behaviors.
> >
> > If the device was already runtime-active during the system suspend, doing
> > an extra clear of the pm_only counter won't hurt anything.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Do you want to submit a patch that implements this change or do you
> perhaps expect me to do that?
I'll submit a patch in a few days. I just wanted to check first that the
idea was sound.
Alan Stern
