linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

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, 02 May 2014 17:32:25 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

On Friday, May 02, 2014 03:35:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another
> >>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out.
> >>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes
> >>>> a nested indentation level.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> >>>
> >>> Well, this conflicts with
> >>>
> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/
> >>>
> >>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to
> >>> return negative values because of
> >>>
> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/
> >>>
> >>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).
> >>>
> >>> Any ideas how to resolve that?
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before
> >> than mines then I will refresh and resend them.
> >
> > Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle
> > than the scheduler, but either way would be fine.
> 
> Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these 
> modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be 
> shared between sched and pm ?

That would be perfectly fine by me, but I'm not sure what Ingo and Peter think
about that.

I can set up a branch with sched/idle/cpuidle changes.


-- 
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/