linux-kernel - cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] (fwd)

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

Message-ID: <20060911230720.GA13728@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:07:20 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	eugeny.mints@...il.com
Subject: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] (fwd)

(I typoed in lkml address, sorry, and please include correct address
in Cc).

----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> -----

To: "Eugeny S. Mints" <eugeny.mints@...il.com>, lkml@....ucw.cz
Cc: Preece Scott-PREECE <scott.preece@...orola.com>,
	Matthew Locke <matt@...adgs.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...ia.com>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>
Subject: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.

Hi!

(cc-ed to lkml).

> >>Just as a data point, "keeping the cpufreq interface" is
> >>irrelevant to a number of us, because we configure it out
> >>of the system.  I'm not really arguing that we should get
> >>rid of an existing kernel interface, but I don't see any
> >>reason why we shouldn't be able to have a separately
> >>configurable interface if cpufreq doesn't meet our needs.
> >
> >Configurable interfaces are evil,
> Are you saying that not having sysfs attribute nodes for entities which 
> don't exist in a certain configuration is evil?

I'm saying that

#ifdef CONFIG_FOO
	provide user<->kernel interface
#endif

is evil.

> >patch. You have developed your own little interface that suits your
> >needs -- and that's fine -- but now you are trying to push it into
> >mainline... and that is not, because those interfaces were not really
> >designed to work together.

> once cpufreq userland interface functionality which does not belong to the 
> kernel is moved out of the kernel cpufreq interface becomes a subset of 
> PowerOP sysfs interface. In other words this means that improvements of PM 
>  stack layers/interfaces design will allow to design/develop an universal 
> userspace interface. We'd prefer to move gracefully in this direction 
> though.

<tongue-in-cheek warning>

Yes, once cpufreq userland interface is removed from kernel, merging
powerop is reasonable thing to do. But please get at least
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt patch merged to mainline
before attempting next powerop submission :-P.

<I'm trying to explain that removing cpufreq userland interface is
about as probable as MS Linux, and only a bit less likely than hell
freezing over.>
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/