linux-kernel - Re: irqs_disabled() vs ACPI interpreter vs suspend

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:	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:55:25 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: irqs_disabled() vs ACPI interpreter vs suspend

Hi!

> > So it looks like we will indeed need something like the
> > patch to transform ACPI's use of GFP_KERNEL
> > to GFP_ATOMIC across late suspend
> > and early resume; to avoid warnings from
> > _GTS, _BFS, and irqrouter_resume use of kmalloc.
> 
> OK, so there are two possibilities, IMO.
> 
> Either we switch that in the suspend callbacks like in my patch #1, or we
> can add a bool variable that will be 'true' is the system is during

Do you mean acpi_gfp_flags? 

I think that's ugly, because not only gfp_flags need change during
late suspend (you may not sleep, for example). I'd prefer boolean.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/