linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] power_supply: add power supply scope

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: <20111208233643.GA19022@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date:	Fri, 9 Dec 2011 03:36:43 +0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Richard Hughes <hughsient@...il.com>,
	Daniel Nicoletti <dantti12@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	vojtech@....cz, Przemo Firszt <przemo@...szt.eu>,
	Richard Hughes <richard@...hsie.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] power_supply: add power supply scope

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:53:15AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Yes.  That patch was mostly so I could test the mechanism.  Certainly
> general rule is that if there's no scope attribute then assume System.

Okay, great.

> > /sys/class/power_supply/battery/supplicants/<device_name>
> > is a symlink to /sys/class/HID/.../device.
> >
> > With a special meaning of an empty directory (or non-existent, or w/ a
> > symlink pointing to '/sys/devices/system') -- system power.
> 
> Yes.  That's awkward to implement because the kobj isn't exported from
> device/base.  But aside from that, its a somewhat awkward interface for
> usermode, because it has to end up following symlink and resolving their
> paths, and then having special hardcoded knowledge of what particular
> paths mean.  When all upower really wants to know is "do I need to
> suspend when this supply gets low?".

Mm... OK. I think you're right. The 'scope' thing is indeed useful by
itself.

> > That way we may describe any possible power hierarchy.
> >
> > From the implementation point of view, for now power_supply may just
> > conditionally (by introducing power_supply.not_system_power flag)
> 
> How is that different from scope?

No different at all, I'm fine with either power_supply.scope or any
other flag. :-)

Thanks!

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
--
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/