[PATCH 1/1] PM: Make warning in suspend_test_finish() less likely to happen

[Stefan Bader]

As this is one the most unnecessary warnings we got around and apparently
has been annoying upstream too, plus the change is least likely to cause
any regression.

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl>
> 
> Bug-Link: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/464552
> 
> Increase TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS to 10 so the warning in
> suspend_test_finish() doesn't annoy the users of slower systems so much.
> 
> Also, make the warning print the suspend-resume cycle time, so that we
> know why the warning actually triggered.
> 
> Patch prepared during the hacking session at the Kernel Summit in Tokyo.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org>
> (cherry picked from commit 04bf7539c08d64184736cdc5e4ad617eda77eb0f)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw at canonical.com>

Acked-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader at canonical.com>

> ---
>  kernel/power/suspend_test.c |    5 +++--
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/suspend_test.c b/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> index 17d8bb1..25596e4 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
>   * The time it takes is system-specific though, so when we test this
>   * during system bootup we allow a LOT of time.
>   */
> -#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS	5
> +#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS	10
>  
>  static unsigned long suspend_test_start_time;
>  
> @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ void suspend_test_finish(const char *label)
>  	 * has some performance issues.  The stack dump of a WARN_ON
>  	 * is more likely to get the right attention than a printk...
>  	 */
> -	WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000), "Component: %s\n", label);
> +	WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000),
> +	     "Component: %s, time: %u\n", label, msec);
>  }
>  
>  /*