linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

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:	Thu, 09 May 2013 21:12:40 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

On Thursday, May 09, 2013 02:31:46 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The following patch series introduces a marker for power management functions
> > > > and data. This this marker, #ifdef CONFIG_PM and #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > can be removed from most of the code. This ensures that the conditional code
> > > > still compiles but is not included in the object file.
> > > > 
> > > > As a side effect, drivers declaring struct dev_pm_ops unconditionally
> > > > get a bit smaller if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not configured.
> > > 
> > > What about code that depends on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?  Or code that 
> > > depends on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP but not on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?
> > > 
> > Should we also introduce __pm_sleep and __pm_runtime ?
> 
> If you want to implement this correctly, I think you have to.
> 
> As for whether the additional complication is desirable ... I'll leave 
> that up to Rafael to decide.

Well, if that had been so easy to do, we would have done it already before.

I think that we first should try to combine PM_SLEEP with PM_RUNTIME (plus
some other power management options related to CPU PM) and then introduce
something like __pm.  Otherwise, it's going to be a mess.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/