linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address

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, 2 Feb 2018 13:02:04 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>>>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> Instead of declaring function as __weak, establish a new struct for
>>> ACPI related stubs and incorporate it into x86_init.
>>>
>>> That is my proposal. I think I would go this way in my case where I
>>> need to treat differently ACPI HW reduced initialization of legacy
>>> devices.
>>
>> IOW you'd like to have a set of ACPI init callbacks that could be
>> defined by an arch, right?
>
> Correct!

OK