linux-kernel - Re: [patch update] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices

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:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:21:39 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, Magnus Damm <damm@...l.co.jp>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch update] PM: Introduce core framework for run-time PM of I/O devices

On Monday 15 June 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Below is the current version of my "run-time PM for I/O devices" patch.
> > > > 
> > > > I've done my best to address the comments received during the recent
> > > > discussions, but at the same time I've tried to make the patch only contain
> > > > the most essential things.  For this reason, for example, the sysfs interface
> > > > is not there and it's going to be added in a separate patch.
> > > > 
> > > > Please let me know if you want me to change anything in this patch or to add
> > > > anything new to it.  [Magnus, I remember you wanted something like
> > > > ->runtime_wakeup() along with ->runtime_idle(), but I'm not sure it's really
> > > > necessary.  Please let me know if you have any particular usage scenario for
> > > > it.]
> > 
> > Appended is an update of the patch addressing the today's comments from Magnus.
> 
> This is really looking very good.  I'll do a more detailed review
> later.  (In particular, I have not checked the details of the rather
> intricate state machine transitions.)  For now, a couple of things 
> struck my eye:
> 
> Shouldn't the calls to complete() really be complete_all()?  There
> might be more than one thread waiting for a suspend or resume callback
> to finish.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

> Since pm_runtime_resume() takes care of powering up the parent, there's 
> no need for pm_request_resume() to worry about it also.

But still it won't hurt to do it IMO, because the parents are then going to be
resumed before our pm_runtime_resume() is called.

> The documentation should mention that the runtime_suspend method is 
> supposed to enable remote wakeup if it as available and if 
> device_may_wakeup(dev) is true.

Well, I thought that was obvious. :-)

Best,
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/