linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] PM / sleep: don't suspend parent when async child suspend

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:42:47 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PM / sleep: don't suspend parent when async child
 suspend_{noirq,late} fails

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:53:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> > index c58563581345..57a8ca4bc8ab 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> > @@ -1027,6 +1027,8 @@ static int __device_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool a
>> >         TRACE_DEVICE(dev);
>> >         TRACE_SUSPEND(0);
>> >
>> > +       dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async);
>> > +
>>
>> On a second thought. I'd move the
>>
>> if (dev->power.syscore || dev->power.direct_complete)
>>
>> along with this (and put it in front), because those flags won't
>> change while children are being waited on anyway.
>
> I can do that, but is it really necessary? It's also not the order we do
> it for __device_suspend(). I don't like arbitrarily making optimizations
> in this code differently to the non-{noirq,late} versions.

Good point.

Applied, thanks!

Rafael