linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH} x86_64 PM

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: <1180302896.4020.37.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Mon, 28 May 2007 07:54:56 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH} x86_64 PM_TRACE support.

Hi.

On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 22:10 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Pavel Machek pisze:
> > Hi!
> > 
> >> As promised I took another look at the patch and at what Randy had
> >> prepared to fix the IA64 compilation error. I did some more work on it,
> >> and believe that the following is the tidiest correct solution I can
> >> come up with. It differs from the version that caused the compilation
> >> error primarily in that:
> >>
> >> * the #include <asm/resume-trace.h> is inside the #ifdef 
> >>   CONFIG_PM_TRACE.
> >> * now-unnecessary protection for multiple #includes and ifdef testing of
> >>   CONFIG_PM_TRACE in the asm code were removed.
> >> * do-nothing definitions for !PM_TRACE restored to
> >>   include/linux/resume-trace.h.
> >>
> >> We're therefore depending upon kernel/power/Kconfig having the right
> >> depends condition. As far as I can see, IA64 doesn't define CONFIG_X86.
> >> Is that correct, or do we need to have (X86 && !IA64)?
> > 
> > ia64? did you mean x86-64?
> > 
> > Otherwise looks ok to me.
> > 
> IIRC enabling pm_trace on x86_64 was breaking compilation on ia64, so I
> think Nigel meant the latter.

Yes, it was breaking ia64, so I meant what I said - I can test x86_64
easily. I was concerned about ensuring the condition was right for ia64.

Regards,

Nigel

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)