linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended

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: <200801021750.16359.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:50:15 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM: Introduce destroy_suspended_device()

On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 2 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > > 
> > > It sometimes is necessary to destroy a device object during a suspend or
> > > hibernation, but the PM core is supposed to control all device objects in that
> > > cases.  For this reason, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism allowing one
> > > to ask the PM core to remove a device object corresponding to a suspended
> > > device on one's behalf.
> > > 
> > > Define function destroy_suspended_device() that will schedule the removal of
> > > a device object corresponding to a suspended device by the PM core during the
> > > subsequent resume.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > 
> > Sorry, a small fix is needed for this patch.  Namely, dpm_sysfs_remove(dev)
> > should not be called by device_pm_schedule_removal(), because it will be called
> > anyway from device_pm_remove() when the device object is finally unregistered
> > (we're talking here about unlikely error paths only, but still).
> 
> The situation is a little confusing, because the source files under 
> drivers/base/power are maintained in Greg's tree and he already has 
> gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch 
> installed.  That patch conflicts with this one.
> 
> One of the these two patches will have to be rewritten to apply on top 
> of the other.  Which do you think should be changed?

Well, from the bisectability point of view, it would be better to adjust
gregkh-driver-pm-acquire-device-locks-prior-to-suspending.patch and let the
$subject patch series go first, if you don't mind.

Rafael
--
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/