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

Message-ID: <20130510105446.GA6107@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 10 May 2013 12:54:46 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
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>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pm: Introduce __pm to mark power management code

On Thu 2013-05-09 10:09:48, 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.

Was it compile-tested for both PM_SLEEP and !PM_SLEEP cases?

If driver wants to have pm-specific fields in its structures, this
will make it harder.

Ifdefs are ugly, and this has better compiler coverage in !PM_SLEEP
case. Good. OTOH most people are running with PM_SLEEP, so advantage
is not great...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/