linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI suspend: Fix CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependence and some compilation warnings (was: Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs")

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI suspend: Fix CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependence and some
 compilation warnings (was: Re: [announce] new tree:
 "fix all build warnings, on all configs")

applied.

thanks,
-Len

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 of October 2008, Len Brown wrote:
> > 
> > > >   drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c:67: warning: ‘acpi_pm_disable_gpes’ defined but not used
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Shows that this code has an identity crisis due to a maze of #ifdefs, in
> > > > the PM_SLEEP && !SUSPEND && !HIBERNATION case for example.
> > > 
> > > This case is invalid, because PM_SLEEP == SUSPEND || HIBERNATION !
> > 
> > I though so too, but 2.6.27 appears to have added XEN to the mix:
> > 
> > config PM_SLEEP
> >         bool
> >         depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION || XEN_SAVE_RESTORE
> 
> Yeah, which breaks things. :-(
> 
> The patch below should fix it and BTW I think ACPI_SLEEP should not depend
> on XEN_SAVE_RESTORE anyway, so this is a bug fix really (please consider as
> .28 material, probably -stable too).
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> 
> ACPI suspend: Fix CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP dependence and some compilation warnings
> 
> Initially CONFIG_PM_SLEEP was defined as
> CONFIG_SUSPEND || CONFIG_HIBERNATION and some ACPI code, most
> importantly the code in drivers/acpi/main.c, was written with this
> assumption.  Currently, however, CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is also set when
> CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE is set.
> 
> This causes some compilation warnings to appear in
> drivers/acpi/main.c if both CONFIG_SUSPEND and CONFIG_HIBERNATION
> are unset and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is set (this was impossible before).
> To fix this problem, redefine CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP do depend directly
> on CONFIG_SUSPEND || CONFIG_HIBERNATION, as originally intended, and
> use it instead of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP in drivers/acpi/main.c, wherever
> appropriate.
> 
> Additionally, move the acpi_target_sleep_state definition from under
> the #ifdef to prevent compilation from failing in some cases. 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/Kconfig      |    2 +-
>  drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c |    7 +++----
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ if ACPI
>  
>  config ACPI_SLEEP
>  	bool
> -	depends on PM_SLEEP
> +	depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION
>  	default y
>  
>  config ACPI_PROCFS
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>  #include "sleep.h"
>  
>  u8 sleep_states[ACPI_S_STATE_COUNT];
> +static u32 acpi_target_sleep_state = ACPI_STATE_S0;
>  
>  static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state)
>  {
> @@ -45,9 +46,7 @@ static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_s
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> -static u32 acpi_target_sleep_state = ACPI_STATE_S0;
> -
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
>  /*
>   * ACPI 1.0 wants us to execute _PTS before suspending devices, so we allow the
>   * user to request that behavior by using the 'acpi_old_suspend_ordering'
> @@ -132,7 +131,7 @@ static void acpi_pm_end(void)
>  	 */
>  	acpi_target_sleep_state = ACPI_STATE_S0;
>  }
> -#endif /* CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
>  extern void do_suspend_lowlevel(void);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>