linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optional Beeping During Resume From Suspend To Ram.

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: <200707050910.21852.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:10:21 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	nigel@...pend2.net, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optional Beeping During Resume From Suspend To Ram.

Hi.

On Thursday 05 July 2007 09:01:09 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > @@ -80,9 +82,11 @@ static int __init acpi_sleep_setup(char 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  __setup("acpi_sleep=", acpi_sleep_setup);
> > > > >  
> > > > > +/* Ouch, we want to delete this. We already have better version in 
> > > > userspace, in 
> > > > > +   s2ram from suspend.sf.net project */
> > > > 
> > > > Do we? This version has advantages in not requiring any userspace app 
and 
> > in 
> > > > being able to work even if you can't yet get as far as having
> > > 
> > > Take a look at the file. It has whitelist with just one entry, too
> > > bad.
> > 
> > The contents of the whitelist are irrelevant. My laptop needs this 
> > functionality, but I haven't bothered to send you a whitelist entry, in 
part 
> > because I don't use s2ram.
> > 
> > Regardless of that, if you had read the whole comment (you've deleted half 
of 
> > it), you would have noticed that I ended up changing my mind and instead 
> > saying "Why not just delete the __setup now, or at least put it in the 
> > deprecated file?"
> 
> That should be  certainly done in separate patch, right? It is on my
> todolist somewhere now.

Yeah, agree.

> > > > > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ real_save_cr3:	.long 0
> > > > >  real_save_cr4:	.long 0
> > > > >  real_magic:	.long 0
> > > > >  video_mode:	.long 0
> > > > > -video_flags:	.long 0
> > > > > +realmode_flags:	.long 0
> > > > >  beep_flags:	.long 0
> > > > >  real_efer_save_restore:	.long 0
> > > > >  real_save_efer_edx: 	.long 0
> > > > 
> > > > Beep_flags should be removed too if you're sticking with /proc.
> > > 
> > > Fixed.
> > 
> > Ta.  But you didn't answer the question - why /proc and not sysfs?
> 
> Do you seriously advocate setting two bits of one variable from /proc,
> and one more bit from /sys?

That's partly why I had a separate variable - retaining proc only because it's 
existing functionality, using sysfs for the new code. Remember, too, that 
they're really distinct functionality. The only thing they share is that 
they're both used in real mode.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped