linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

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: <201005142308.48386.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Fri, 14 May 2010 23:08:48 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

On Friday 14 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> This patch series adds a suspend-block api that provides the same
> functionality as the android wakelock api. This version has some
> changes from, or requested by, Rafael. The most notable changes are:
> - DEFINE_SUSPEND_BLOCKER and suspend_blocker_register have been added
>   for statically allocated suspend blockers. 
> - suspend_blocker_destroy is now called suspend_blocker_unregister
> - The user space mandatory _INIT ioctl has been replaced with an
>   optional _SET_NAME ioctl.
> 
> I kept the ack and reviewed by tags on two of the patches even though
> there were a few cosmetic changes.

Thanks for the patches, I think they are in a pretty good shape now.

That said, I'd like the changelogs to be a bit more descriptive, at least for
patch [1/8].  I think it should explain (in a few words) what the purpose of
the feature is and what problems it solves that generally a combination of
runtime PM and cpuidle is not suitable for in your opinion.  IOW, why you
think we need that feature.

The changelog of patch [2/8] appears to be outdated, that needs to be fixed.
Also, it would be nice to explain in the changelog what the interface is needed
for (in terms of the problems that it helps to handle).

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/