linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [patch] complain when users abuse the pm

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: <20100530200756.GA25545@gvim.org>
Date:	Sun, 30 May 2010 13:07:56 -0700
From:	mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
To:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, markgross@...gnar.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [patch] complain when users abuse the pm_qos API

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:03:18AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On 30/05/10 06:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Saturday 29 May 2010, mark gross wrote:
> >>The following patch is to help clean up API abusers of pm_qos where
> >>they call update_request before registering a request.
> >>
> >>--mgross
> >>
> >>--Signed-off-by: markgross<markgross@...gnar.org>
> >
> >Will there be a big issue if I push this during the next merge window?
> 
> What's the point to the patch? That is: why is calling
> update_request before registering a request such a big problem that
> it demands a WARN() and dump stack?

If e1000e realy needs the latency set and makes assumptions that its
done its part, I would like to let them know that they have not
registerd the request they thought they did.

--mgross

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nigel
--
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/