linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimncsuARHeavMCHL4imEOVXMomTJoDQns4-wq5o@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:29:48 -0700
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, david@...g.hm,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, swetland@...gle.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

2010/8/8 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/8/7 Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>:
>> > 2010/8/7 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
>> >> On Saturday, August 07, 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >>> 2010/8/6 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>:
>> >>> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> ...
>> >>> >> total_time, total time the wake lock has been active. This one should
>> >>> >> be obvious.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Also easily added.
>> >>> >
>> >>> Only with a handle passed to all the calls.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I'm kind of tired of this "my solution is the only acceptable one"
>> >> mindset.  IMHO, it's totally counter productive.
>> >>
>> >
>> > How do you propose to track how long a driver has blocked suspend when
>> > you have an unblock call that takes no arguments.
>> >
>>
>> Also, I did not not see a response to my question about why you don't
>> want to pass a handle.
>
> It doesn't really matter what I personally want.  In fact, I'm not totally
> opposed to that idea, although there are disadvantages (eg. a "handle"
> would really mean a pointer to an object with certain life cycle that needs to
> be managed by the caller and it's not that clear to me who should manage the
> objects that the PCI wakeup code would pass to pm_wakeup_event(), for one

Wouldn't a single global handle work for the way you are handling pci
wakeup events? It looked like you just reset a global timeout every
time a pci wakeup event occurs.

> example).  I sent a pull request for your original patchset to Linus after all. :-)
>
> I said I didn't think "it would fly", meaning that I was afraid the other kernel
> developers wouldn't like that change.
>
> The reason why I think so is that you'd like to add a whole new infrastructure
> whose only purpose would be debugging that would only be useful to systems
> using opportunistic suspend.  That, however, is only Android right now and it
> cannot use the mainline kernel for other reasons, so basically we would add
> infrastructure that's useful to no one.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The debugging is useful for anyone
using the api, not just Android, and a handle is also needed to mix
timeouts and pm_relax. The handle can be the device, but some drivers
need several handles per device.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/