Hello, On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> + if (PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE != req->node.prio) > >> + pm_qos_update_target( > >> + pm_qos_array[req->pm_qos_class]->constraints, > >> + &req->node, PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ, > >> + PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); > > Maybe it'd be cleaner to add a param or internal variant of > > pm_qos_update_request()? > > Maybe, but I was trying to make a minimal fix here.
Hmmm.... it just looks like things can easily get out of sync with the complex function call. I don't think it'll be too invasive if you introduce an internal variant which doesn't do the canceling. Rafael, what do you think? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
