linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2

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]

Message-ID: <45104DAC.2000000@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:06:04 +0400
From:	"Eugeny S. Mints" <eugeny.mints@...il.com>
To:	"Scott E. Preece" <preece@...orola.com>
CC:	pavel@....cz, linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2

Scott E. Preece wrote:
> | From: Pavel Machek<pavel@....cz>
> | 
> | > >>+struct powerop_driver {
> | > >>+	char *name;
> | > >>+	void *(*create_point) (const char *pwr_params, va_list args);
> | > >>+	int (*set_point) (void *md_opt);
> | > >>+	int (*get_point) (void *md_opt, const char *pwr_params, va_list 
> | > >>args);
> | > >>+};
> | > >
> | > >We can certainly get better interface than va_list, right?
> | > 
> | > Please elaborate.
> | 
> | va_list does not provide adequate type checking. I do not think it
> | suitable in driver<->core interface.
> ---
> 
> Well, in this particular case the typing probably has to be weak, one
> way or another. The meaning of the parameters is arguably opaque at
> the interface - the attributes may be meaningful to specific components
> of the system, but are not defined in the standardized interface (which
> would otherwise have to know about all possible kinds of power
> attributes and be changed every time a new one is added).
> 
> So, if you'd rather have an array of char* or void* values, that would
> probably also meet the need, but my guess is that the typing is
> intentionally opaque.

exactly. Thanks Scott, I don't have anything meaningful to add here.

> ---
> | ...
> | > >How is it going to work on 8cpu box? will
> | > >you have states like cpu1_800MHz_cpu2_1600MHz_cpu3_800MHz_... ?
> | > 
> | > i do not operate with term 'state' so I don't understand what it means here.
> | 
> | Okay, state here means "operating point". How will operating points
> | look on 8cpu box? That's 256 states if cpus only support "low" and
> | "high". How do you name them?
> ---
> 
> I don't think you would name the compounded states. Each CPU would need
> to have its own defined set of operating points (since the capabilities
> of the CPUs can reasonably be different).

i'm not sure - may be it's the mail list issues but in fact I sent out
my additional comment on this question in a separate letter on this thread
a while ago.

Eugeny

> scott

-
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/