linux-kernel - {Spam?} Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: {Spam?} Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing that comes to mind is that you will need some way to
> > > make sure that only one of ACPI and APM get initialized ...
> >
> > i don't see how that has anything to do with removing legacy PM
> > support.  you can select both ACPI and APM *now*.  if that's a bad
> > thing, then fixing it is a completely independent issue.
>
> Except your patch removes this hunk:
>
> @@ -2264,14 +2248,6 @@ static int __init apm_init(void)
>  		apm_info.disabled = 1;
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
> -	if (PM_IS_ACTIVE()) {
> -		printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: overridden by ACPI.\n");
> -		apm_info.disabled = 1;
> -		return -ENODEV;
> -	}
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
> -	pm_active = 1;
> -#endif
>
> in apm.c and a similar piece of the ACPI initialisation that
> prevented one initialising if the other had already initialised.

ah, just took a closer look at this.  from <linux/pm_legacy.h>:
...
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
...
#else
#define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0
...
#endif

so if you choose not to configure legacy PM, that macro equates to
false and that "if" construct in arch/i386/kernel/apm.c doesn't come
into play, anyway.

so i re-iterate what i posted in my earlier e-mail -- if APM and ACPI
want to avoid clashing, they have to do it without invoking anything
related to legacy PM.

rday

p.s.  if someone wants to take that previously-submitted patch
proposal and tidy it up and submit it officially, feel free.

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/