linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

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: <20130509174822.GA30549@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Thu, 9 May 2013 10:48:22 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > The following patch series introduces a marker for power management functions
> > and data. This this marker, #ifdef CONFIG_PM and #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > can be removed from most of the code. This ensures that the conditional code
> > still compiles but is not included in the object file.
> > 
> > As a side effect, drivers declaring struct dev_pm_ops unconditionally
> > get a bit smaller if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not configured.
> 
> What about code that depends on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?  Or code that 
> depends on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP but not on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME?
> 
Should we also introduce __pm_sleep and __pm_runtime ?

Thanks,
Guenter
--
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/