linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] block: implement runtime pm strategy

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:	Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:11:53 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
	Shane Huang <shane.huang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] block: implement runtime pm strategy

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 01:11:45PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > Considering ODD's use case, I was thinking of moving the
> > > blk_pm_runtime_init call to sd.c, as sr will not use request based auto
> > > suspend. Probably right before we decrease usage count for the device in
> > > sd_probe_async. What do you think?
> > 
> > That makes sense.  But then you should review the changes in scsi_pm.c 
> > to make sure they will work okay for devices that aren't using 
> > block-layer runtime PM.
> 
> Now that we have two different runtime PM schemes for scsi device, and
> I think there are two ways to make them work:
> 
> 1 Do it all in scsi_pm.c. In bus' runtime PM callback, check if this
>   device is using block layer runtime PM API, and act accordingly;
> 2 Do it in indivisual drivers' runtime PM callback. Bus' runtime PM
>   callbacks just call pm_generic_runtime_xxx, and each driver's runtime
>   PM callback will need to do what is appropriate for them.
> 
> Personally I want to go with option 1, but I would like to hear your
> opinion :-)

I don't think it matters very much.  Option 1 is okay with me.  James 
might have a stronger feeling one way or the other.

Alan Stern

--
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/