linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.

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]

Message-Id: <200704191327.17500.lenb@kernel.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:27:17 -0400
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, davej@...emonkey.org.uk,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Kill off legacy power management stuff.

On Wednesday 18 April 2007 20:35, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> >  > > p.p.s.  patch improvements that will let me avoid doing any of that
> >  > > myself always welcome. :-)
> >  >
> >  > well, I'm sorry that I've known about the APM issue for a long time
> >  > and done nothing about it.  I did ping davej when he broke it,
> >  > but his to-do list is probably even longer than mine.
> >
> > ping timeout.
> >
> > I don't recall too many of the details surrounding those changes,
> > but I certainly won't stand in the way of anyone trying to fix it.
> > It sounds like you and Robert are on top of it, or do you want me to
> > poke at it ?
> 
> well, before i get even more confused by what was (once upon a time) a
> fairly straightforward removal patch, the first obvious question is --
> are there *any* circumstances that *require* a config selection of
> CONFIG_PM_LEGACY, as opposed to a selection of APM and/or ACPI?  if
> there are, then it can't simply be removed.  my original patch
> submission was based on the assumption that absolutely no one needed
> the legacy stuff anymore and absolutely everything related to it could
> be scrapped.
> 
> so, first things first:  what *needs* legacy PM at the moment?
> 
> rday
> 
> p.s.  i'm confused by the header file include/linux/pm_legacy.h,
> especially this part:
> 
> ========================
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_LEGACY
> ...
> # else /* CONFIG_PM_LEGACY */
> 
> #define PM_IS_ACTIVE() 0
> ...
> #endif
> =======================
> 
>   so the macro "PM_IS_ACTIVE()" represents whether *legacy* PM has
> been selected.  in other words, it makes no (apparent) sense that the
> value of that macro would represent some kind of contention mechanism
> between APM and ACPI, which is entirely independent from the legacy
> stuff.  right?


yep, the problem is that PM_IS_ACTIVE() got mixed up in CONFIG_PM_LEGACY.
how about i send a patch to fix this first -- when i get back tomorrow.
and then the CONFIG_PM_LEGACY patch will not be tangled in this?

-Len

-
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/