linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:15:27 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and
	hibernation callbacks

On Tue 2008-03-18 17:53:40, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:22:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > 
> > Introduce 'struct pm_ops' representing a set of suspend and
> > hibernation operations for bus types, device classes and device
> > types.
> 
> Ok, I must have missed the thread describing why we need to do this, so,
> why do we need to do this?  What is this going to buy us in the end
> after everything is changed?

That was rather long thread where Linus flamed us for having
everything in one "suspend" callback, selecting what to do by
pm_message_t parameter. It was kind of hard to miss ;-).
								Pavel


> > +struct pm_ops {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > +	int (*prepare)(struct device *dev);
> > +	void (*complete)(struct device *dev);
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> > +	int (*suspend)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*resume)(struct device *dev);
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION
> > +	int (*freeze)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*thaw)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*poweroff)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*quiesce)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*restore)(struct device *dev);
> > +	int (*recover)(struct device *dev);
> > +#endif
> 
> 
> Don't ifdef stuff like this, it only causes ifdefs to be needed to the
> .c code as well for all places these structures are defined in
> drivers/busses, right?

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
pomozte zachranit klanovicky les:  http://www.ujezdskystrom.info/
--
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/