linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as _

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: <200711301652.42110.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:52:41 -0700
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	trenn@...e.de, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init

On Friday 30 November 2007 04:37:26 pm Rene Herman wrote:
> On 30-11-07 18:04, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > If I have not overseen something, it should be rather obvious that those
> > can all be declared __init...
> > ---------------
> > 
> > Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init
> > 
> > There are three kind of parse functions provided by PNP acpi/bios:
> >  - get current resources
> >  - set resources
> >  - get possible resources
> > The first two may be needed later at runtime.
> > The possible resource settings should never change dynamically.
> > And even if this would make any sense (I doubt it), the current implementation
> > only parses possible resource settings at early init time:
> >   -> declare all the option parsing __init
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
> 
> Yes. Obviousness aside,
> 
> (0) pnpacpi_add_device                          is only caller of
> ...

I agree this is probably safe in the current implementation.

However, I think the current implementation is just broken because
we can't really handle hotplug of ACPI devices.  Specifically, I think
the first TBD in acpi_bus_check_device() should be fleshed out so it
does something like pnpacpi_add_device().

So my dissenting opinion is that this patch would just get reverted
soon anyway when somebody finishes implementing ACPI hotplug, and
therefore it's not worth doing.

Bjorn
-
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/