Re: [PATCH] block: Omit a redundant pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() call in blk_post_runtime_resume()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 3/14/26 7:15 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> The device's last busy timestamp was set in a wrapper function since
> the commit 18c1fe53d186867243f4cf17f4eef60737a16c4c ("PM: runtime:
> Mark last busy stamp in pm_request_autosuspend()").
> Thus delete a pm_runtime_mark_last_busy() call before
> a pm_request_autosuspend() call.
>
> The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   block/blk-pm.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-pm.c b/block/blk-pm.c
> index 8d3e052f91da..d6eab3193a20 100644
> --- a/block/blk-pm.c
> +++ b/block/blk-pm.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,6 @@ void blk_post_runtime_resume(struct request_queue *q)
>   	spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>   	old_status = q->rpm_status;
>   	q->rpm_status = RPM_ACTIVE;
> -	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(q->dev);
>   	pm_request_autosuspend(q->dev);
>   	spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>   

Isn't it expected that the Coccinelle script is shared when a patch is
posted that has been generated by Coccinelle? Anyway:

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>