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, 8 Feb 2011 10:23:00 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	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>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

On Tuesday, February 08, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:05:40AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, February 07, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yeah, but some people seem very keen on removing the pointers to the PM
> > > > > > > ops entirely when CONFIG_PM is disabled which means that you end up with
> > > > > > > varying idioms for what you do with the PM ops as stuff gets ifdefed
> > > > > > > out.  Then again I'm not sure anything would make those people any
> > > > > > > happier.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I really think we should do things that makes sense rather that worry about
> > > > > > who's going to like or dislike it (except for Linus maybe, but he tends to like
> > > > > > things that make sense anyway).  At this point I think the change I suggested
> > > > > > makes sense, because it (a) simplifies things and (b) follows the quite common
> > > > > > practice which is to make PM callbacks depend on CONFIG_PM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Many people make these callback dependent on PM not because it makes
> > > > > much sense but because it is possible to do so. However, aside of
> > > > > randconfig compile testing, nobody really tests drivers that implement
> > > > > PM in the !CONFIG_PM setting.
> > > > 
> > > > That I can agree with, but I'm not sure whether it is an argument against
> > > > the patch I've just posted or for it?
> > > 
> > > More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force
> > > CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from
> > > drivers...
> > 
> > We simply can't force CONFIG_PM to 'y', because some platforms want it to be 'n'.
> > 
> 
> Again, want or need? It would be nice to know answer to this question.

I _think_ the answer is "want", which doesn't change a lot, because I'm not
going to convince people to stop wanting things. :-)
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists