linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/5] ACPI: Allow handlers to be installed at the same time as methods

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:	Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:09:19 -0700
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] ACPI: Allow handlers to be installed at the same
 time as methods

>In fact, what we need to handle is the case in which a GPE is pointed to by
>a _PRW method somewhere and we presume that it's necessary to execute
>Notify() for it regardless of whether or not it has a method, right?

Is this the "windows compatibility" case where windows claims to implement a "implicit notify" if the GPE method does not exist for a GPE referenced by a _PRW?



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...k.pl]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:19 PM
>To: Matthew Garrett
>Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
>pci@...r.kernel.org; Moore, Robert
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ACPI: Allow handlers to be installed at the same
>time as methods
>
>On Monday, October 04, 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There are circumstances under which it may be desirable for GPE handlers
>> to be installable without displacing the existing GPE method. Add support
>> for this via a boolean argument to acpi_install_gpe_handler, and fix up
>the
>> existing users to ensure that their behaviour doesn't change.
>
>Hmm.  I'm not sure this is the best way to do that.
>
>In fact, what we need to handle is the case in which a GPE is pointed to by
>a _PRW method somewhere and we presume that it's necessary to execute
>Notify() for it regardless of whether or not it has a method, right?
>
>So, this GPE will have ACPI_GPE_CAN_WAKE, so can we just put something like
>
>if (gpe_event_info->flags & ACPI_GPE_CAN_WAKE)
>         execute Notify()
>
>somewhere around the switch statement in acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch()?
>
>Or perhaps replace acpi_ev_asynch_enable_gpe() with something that will
>execute Notify() and then do what the original acpi_ev_asynch_enable_gpe()
>does?
>
>That should be easier to implement after the changes we've been discussing
>with
>Bob recently (basically, handle both GPE handlers and _Lxx/_Exx
>analogously).
>
>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/