linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V2] acpi: don't cond

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001160143400.10250@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:44:44 -0500 (EST)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
Cc:	Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2] acpi: don't cond_resched if irq is disabled

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:

> Xiaotian Feng пишет:

> > What's the status of this now? We can still see the sleeping function
> > call warning or enable irq at resume stage.
> > If acpi wants low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, what's wrong
> > with V2 patch?
> > 
> > We should not set any preemption points in irq or atomic. Since we have
> > a simple fix, and it did fix bugs, why should
> > we make things more complex?

> We should not do anything complex here, you are right.
> Consider me ACK your patch.

This patch has been in the acpi-test tree for a while
and I'll push it upstream with the next batch.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center