[Linux-stm32] [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-mdma: call pm_runtime_put if pm_runtime_get_sync fails

[Markus Elfring]

> Calling pm_runtime_get_sync increments the counter even in case of
> failure, causing incorrect ref count. Call pm_runtime_put if
> pm_runtime_get_sync fails.

Is it appropriate to copy a sentence from the change description
into the patch subject?

How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   The PM runtime reference counter is generally incremented by a call of
   the function “pm_runtime_get_sync”.
   Thus call the function “pm_runtime_put” also in two error cases
   to keep the reference counting consistent.


Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?

Regards,
Markus