linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] PM: Remove redundant checks from core device resume routines

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: <AANLkTi=UVOQb15EdpfSeD+Qh8x779pJpsSCTyGvf-gxG@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:34:12 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] PM: Remove redundant checks from core device
 resume routines

So I really like this series not only because it implements what I
suggested, but also because each patch seems to remove more lines than
it adds. That's always nice, and much too unusual.

But in this one, I really think you should simplify/clarify things further:

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c
> @@ -485,20 +485,17 @@ void dpm_resume_noirq(pm_message_t state
>        transition_started = false;
>        while (!list_empty(&dpm_noirq_list)) {
>                struct device *dev = to_device(dpm_noirq_list.next);
> +               int error;
>
>                get_device(dev);
> -               if (dev->power.status > DPM_OFF) {
> -                       int error;
> -
> -                       dev->power.status = DPM_OFF;
> -                       mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> +               dev->power.status = DPM_OFF;
> +               mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);

I think you should move the device to the dpm_suspended list _here_,
before dropping the mutex. That way the power.status thing matches the
list.

So then you'd just remove the crazy conditional "if it's still on a
list, move it to the right list" thing, and these two lines:

>                if (!list_empty(&dev->power.entry))
>                        list_move_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_suspended_list);

Would just be that plain

        list_move_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_suspended_list);

before you even drop the lock. That look much simpler, and the list
movement seems a lot more obvious, no?

If an unregister event (or whatever) happens while you had the mutex
unlocked, it will just remove it from the new list (the one that
matches the power state). So no need for that whole complexity with
"what happens with the list if somebody removed the device while we
were busy suspending/resuming it".

Or am I missing something?

(And same comment for that other identical case in dpm_complete())

                 Linus
--
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/