linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/21] cpuidle: don't call poll_idle

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, 26 Sep 2013 11:39:28 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/21] cpuidle: don't call poll_idle_init() for every cpu

On 26 September 2013 03:52, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

This deserved a log, sorry for missing that :(

> The optimization sounds good but IMHO if we can move this state out of
> the cpuidle common framework that would be nicer.
>
> The poll_idle is only applicable for x86 (acpi_driver and intel_idle),
> hence I suggest we move this state to these drivers, that will cleanup
> the framework code and will remove index shift macro
> CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START which IMHO is weid and prone-to-error.

Lets see what X86 folks have to say about it and then we can do it..
Btw, wouldn't that add some code duplication in those two drivers?
--
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/