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: <1196602496.4049.51.camel@queen.suse.de>
Date:	Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:34:56 +0100
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init


On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 01:33 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 01-12-07 00:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> The PnPBIOS bits should still be fine at least I guess. And, it would seem 
> this is rather essential to Thomas' efforts of making this stuff dynamic in 
> the first place anyway.
No it is not. It is just another optimization I saw while going through
these code parts...

   Thomas

--
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/