On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 01:01:46 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > 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.
Yes, that's just duplicated code. > 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? I'd move the part of pm_qos_update_request() below the cancel_delayed_work_sync() to a separate static function that'd be called from two places. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/
