linux-kernel - Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/2] PM / QoS: Device resume latency framework fix

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:   Tue, 07 Nov 2017 02:08:21 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/2] PM / QoS: Device resume latency framework fix

On Monday, November 6, 2017 2:46:48 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2017 12:00:27 AM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> This series is a replacement for commit 0cc2b4e5a020 (PM / QoS: Fix device
> >> resume latency PM QoS) that had to be reverted due to problems introduced by it.
> >>
> >> This time the genpd PM QoS governor is first updated to be more consistent
> >> and the PM QoS changes are made on top of that which simplifies the second
> >> patch quite a bit.
> >>
> >> This is based on the linux-next branch from linux-pm.git as of now (should
> >> also apply to the current mainline just fine).
> >>
> >> Please test if you can or let me know if you have any comments.
> >
> > The v2 removes a couple of redundant checks from the first patch (and add
> > comments to explain why the checks are not needed) and fixes up the
> > "no constraint" value collision with a valid constraint multiplied by
> > NSEC_PER_USEC in the second patch.
> >
> > Please test if possible and let me know about any issues.
> 
> With this series, the 3 issues I reported before do not happen.
> 
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> 
> Thank you.

Thanks!

Rafael