linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 4)

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: <200803270223.06715.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:23:05 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] PM: Introduce new top level suspend and hibernation callbacks (rev. 4)

On Thursday, 27 of March 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> > > There is absolutely no point getting a second struct anymore.
> > 
> > I obviously disagree with that opinion, so please elaborate.
> 
> Well, what does it bring you ? Why can't it be one struct ? To save
> space in the data area ?

Mostly, but not only that.

There are users of 'struct pm_ops' that aren't even supposed to define the
_noirq callbacks (device types and device classes), so I thought it would be
better to introduce a separate _noirq struct after all.

> I don't think it makes things much cleaner. But I won't fight a war for it,
> now that they are clearly named differently and things like prepare/complete
> are no longer in "noirq", it's semantically the same thing as having the
> fields in one structure, so it's mostly cosmetic.

Well, I'm not going to fight for having the two separate stuctures either.
Also, it wouldn't be difficult to rearrange thigs so that all of the callbacks
are in one structure, so if other people think it's better to do it this way,
I'll go for it.

Thanks,
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/