linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-rc6: S4 and S5 no longer listed as supported on Toshiba Satellite A40

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:32:32 +0200
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Maciek Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc6: S4 and S5 no longer listed as supported on Toshiba Satellite A40

On Thursday 20 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:33, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 September 2007, you wrote:
> > >> Please try this patch.
> > >
> > > Works. All states are now listed again.
> > > I've not tested suspend to disk, but suspend to ram and power off
> > > work fine.
> > >
> > >> +printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "(supports");

Note that this printk should be indented.

> > >>  #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> > >> -       printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "(supports");
> > >>         for (i = ACPI_STATE_S0; i < ACPI_STATE_S4; i++) {
> > >
> > > Isn't there a risk now that we now end up printing
> > >    ACPI: (supports)
> > > if CONFIG_SUSPEND is not enabled and >S4 is not supported?
> > >
> > > Or, more probably, it would print
> > >    ACPI: (supports S5)
> >
> > Don't know what does it mean to support S0 exactly... :)

Agreed, though arguably the same goes for S5. I guess you could say they are 
all states that can be switched to.

> > > as it is unlikely that "off" is not supported :-)
> > >
> > > Maybe S0 should be taken outside the #ifdef and the loop as that
> > > state is also basically always there?
> >
> > Don't think it is worth the trouble. We already have this loop almost
> > completely unrolled, let's not make it complete mess...
>
> Well, you could use "(supports S0" instead of just "(supports". ;-)

After thinking about this a bit more, I think this does make sense for three 
(admittedly minor) reasons:
- consistency between messages with and without CONFIG_SUSPEND
- consistency with /proc/acpi/sleep
- avoiding unnecessary change from previous versions.

Please consider the attached patch which applies on top of Alexey's. Feel 
free to integrate it in his patch.

Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>


View attachment "consolidate_Sx_handling_addendum.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (773 bytes)