linux-kernel - RE: sysfs and power management

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:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:43:49 +0200
From:	<samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com>
To:	<alan@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	<gregkh@...e.de>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: sysfs and power management



>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Alan Cox [mailto:alan@...ux.intel.com]
>
>> I started to wonder if it makes sense to enhance sysfs so that it
>> optionally prodives open / close call backs. Internally sysfs has
>> some bookkeeping about the refcount but this is not visible to the
>> driver. Of course majority of the sysfs users doesn't need that at all
>> and for them this is just overhead.
>
>I think we need it. There doesn't need to be much overhead however as
>there is no need (or sense) in providing per sysfs node open/close
>hooks.

Do you mean per device hook and each sysfs open / close uses 
per device ref-counting.

So the driver would just know that some sysfs  entry is open 
or all the entries are closed. I think that this kind of behavior
is ok for this purpose.

>
>The pm layer also lacks a clean race-free way to actually ascertain
>when the device was last kicked out of pm saving.
--
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/