linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Convert several sysdev users to using struct syscore

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:	Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:45:45 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...e.de>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Convert several sysdev users to using struct syscore_ops

On Friday, March 11, 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:29:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I thought about two different possible ways forward:
> > 
> > (1) Push [1/2] and the patches converting things that x86 depends on first,
> >     followed perhaps by a patch introducing something like
> >     CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSDEV_OPS that would simply disable
> >     sysdev_{suspend|resume|shutdown}() (x86 would set it).  The other arches
> >     might then be converted over time.
> > 
> > (2) Prepare patches converting everything that can be converted in the tree
> >     and push them all in one shot.
> > 
> > The advantage of (1) is that we can start making changes RSN and the
> > advantage of (2) seems to be that we may avoid some potential suspend/resume
> > ordering issues on non-x86 architectures that may arise in principle if some
> > subsystems are converted to using struct syscore_ops while the others are
> > not (syscore_suspend() is executed after sysdev_suspend(), so if we move
> > something from the latter to the former, it may end up being executed after
> > things that it was executed before previously).
> > 
> > Please let me know what your opinion is.
> 
> Hm, I would prefer (1) as that lets us get this moving sooner, and "flag
> days" are never good to have.  If there are problems that arise because
> of it, as you have noted, it will be simple just to convert the parts
> that were using the "old" methods to the new ones to fix the issue,
> right?

Yes, I agree.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/