linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: make VT switching to the suspend console optional v2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:59:49 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: make VT switching to the suspend console optional v2

On Sunday, February 03, 2013 09:56:09 AM Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:50:35 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > > > + * Drivers can indicate support for switchless suspend/resume, which can
> > > > + * save time and flicker, by using this routine and passing 'false' as
> > > > + * the argument.  If any loaded driver needs VT switching, or the
> > > > + * no_console_suspend argument has been passed on the command line, VT
> > > > + * switches will occur.
> > > > + */
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that we'll need a separate counter for the number of registered
> > > drivers and do the switch if that number is equal to the number of drivers that
> > > have passed false to this thing.
> > > 
> > > In which case we can simplify this slightly and introduce
> > > pm_vt_swtich_not_required(void)
> > 
> > Sorry, that won't be sufficient.  Rather something like pm_vt_switch_get()
> > (indicating "I'll do the switch, thanks") and pm_vt_switch_put() (indicating
> > "now you need to do the switch yourself").
> 
> I thought of both of your approaches before posting this one, but each
> have other problems.  And I found a bug in mine last night.
> 
> So I think I need a separate count of drivers that need the switch, and
> ones that don't.  Then if either no driver has registered or if the
> need_switch count is nonzero, we'll do the switch.  Otherwise, if the
> dont_need_switch is nonzero, we can avoid the switch.  I think that'll
> handle all the cases I outlined.

Yes, it should cover them all I think.

> My code as posted will fail if one driver needs a switch but then two
> switch free drivers register.

I see.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/