linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/9] PM / Hibernate: swap, switch to hibernate_io

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:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:46:04 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
CC:	rjw@...k.pl, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/9] PM / Hibernate: swap,	switch to hibernate_io_handle

Hi.

(Sorry Jiri - unintentionally originally replied only to you).

On 02/06/10 18:52, Jiri Slaby wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 > I addressed the comments I got on the previous RFC. I left the handles
 > in place, the functions in hibernate_io_ops now works on them. Further
 > I got rid of the memory barriers and minimized global variables as much
 > as possible. Comments welcome.

I would like to hear the arguments for using these handles. I understand 
there may have been some previous discussion, but am unable to find it.

It seems far more sensible to me to not pass around a handle that 
virtually nothing actually uses, and instead store and utilise the state 
in the place where it is actually useful. If we had more than one struct 
hibernate_io_handle in use at a time, I could understand going this way. 
As it stands, however...

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/