linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG

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]

Message-Id: <201102072046.48763.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:46:48 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:14:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > >  config PM_DEBUG
> > >  	bool "Power Management Debug Support"
> 
> > I think it would be better to simply rename CONFIG_PM_OPS into CONFIG_PM.
> 
> That still leaves the IA64 emulator to worry about

Why exactly?

> but I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, it achieves a similar effect.  The
> main thing I'm looking for here is to cut down on the configuration options
> we have to maintain.

But I must say you chose a particularly bad time for that from my point of view.

> > However, there's a number of things that I'm afraid wouldn't build correctly
> > if none of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP and CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME were set in that case.
> 
> Actually CONFIG_PM_OPS probably also wants to be on independantly of
> those two sometimes for .poweroff() which I'd expect to run even if we
> can't suspend.

If you worry about that, then add CONFIG_PM_POWEROFF and make CONFIG_PM(_OPS)
depend on it, but I don't think it really is worth it, because people
generally don't make the poweroff code depend on CONFIG_PM.

Thanks,
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/