linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce CONFIG_HIBERNATION and CONFIG

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: <200707302354.18212.lenb@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:54:17 -0400
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, david@...g.hm,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce CONFIG_HIBERNATION and CONFIG_SUSPEND (updated)

On Sunday 29 July 2007 20:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> Ok, I took this, and modified Len's patch to re-introduce ACPI_SLEEP on 
> top of it (I took the easy way out, and just made PM_SLEEP imply 
> ACPI_SLEEP, which should make everything come out right. I could have 
> dropped ACPI_SLEEP entirely in favour of PM_SLEEP, but that would have 
> implied changing more of Len's patch than I was really comfy with).
> 
> Len, Rafael, please do check that the end result looks ok. 

SUSPEND depends only on (!SMP || SUSPEND_SMP_POSSIBLE).
This means that while we limit the architectures it can build on
if they are SMP, it can build on any !SMP architecture --
which probably isn't what we want.

I think the right way to go is your SUSPEND_UP_POSSIBLE suggestion.
Honestly, I though it was overly verbose when I first read it,
but I like it better now, especially since it works;-)
I'll reply w/ an incremental patch.

> I suspect ACPI could now take the PM_SLEEP/SUSPEND/HIBERNATE details into 
> account, and that some of the code is not necessary when HIBERNATE is not 
> selected, for example, but I'm not at all sure that it's worth it being 
> very fine-grained.

As you know, I don't think that it is worth dedicated config options
to save 16KB on an SMP+ACPI kernel.  The prospect of adding code to
slice that 16KB into finer grain savings seems even less worthwhile.

-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/