linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PM: Implement autosleep and "wake locks"

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: <CAMP5XgfgZphvsoFr62=oNoDUxXSeRXmu21Co3fGWXhZ17DgO_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:57:16 -0800
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, markgross@...gnar.org,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PM: Implement autosleep and "wake locks"

2012/2/14 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> ...
>> but the wake-source timeout feature has some bugs or incompatible apis. An
>> init api would also be useful for embedding wake-sources in other data
>> structures without adding another memory allocation. Your patch to
>> move the spinlock init to wakeup_source_add still require the struct
>> to be zero initialized and the name set manually.
>
> That should be easy to fix.  What about the appended patch?
>

That works, but I still have to call more than one function before I
can use the wakeup-source (wakeup_source_init and wakeup_source_add)
and more than one function before I can free it (__pm_relax,
wakeup_source_remove and wakeup_source_drop). Is there any reason to
keep these separate?

Also, not copying the name when the caller provides the memory for the
wakeup-source would be a closer match to the wakelock api. Most of our
wakelocks pass a string constant as the name, and making a copy of
that string is not useful. wake_lock_init is also safe to call from
atomic context, but I don't know if anyone relies on this.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/