linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems

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, 22 Jul 2013 08:44:08 -0400
From:	Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
	Shane Wang <shane.wang@...el.com>,
	tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com>,
	Gang Wei <gang.wei@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering
 on hardware reduced systems

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Ben Guthro <Benjamin.Guthro@...rix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2013 09:10 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:13:15 PM Ben Guthro wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com> wrote:
>>>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
>>>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get
>>>> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so
>>>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
>>>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
>>>>
>>>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
>>>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
>>>> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that
>>>> alternative interface).
>>>>
>>>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
>>>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
>>>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>
>>>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Gang Wei <gang.wei@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Shane Wang <shane.wang@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
>>>> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>>>>
>>>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
>>>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
>>>>     Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
>>>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
>>>>     Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
>>>>     More bool vs u8 fixes
>>>> v5: Fix build of consumers of acpi_os_prepare_sleep() interface change,
>>>>     so intermediate builds of partial patch series will not fail.
>>>> v6: Rebased to linux-pm linux-next branch
>>>>     Added warning in tboot early return code
>>>>     Added Reviewed-by lines
>>>>
>>>> Ben Guthro (5):
>>>>   acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
>>>>   acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
>>>>   acpi/xen/tboot: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended
>>>>     parameter
>>>>   x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
>>>>   xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
>>>
>>> Rafael, Bob -
>>>
>>> Is this version of the series something that you may consider taking?
>>> If not - is there something specific you would like to see addressed?
>>
>> Well, I'm afraid you need to give us some more time to process that,
>> sorry.
>
> My apologies - I know it is a busy time during the merge window. I did
> not mean to seem impatient.
>
> With the volume of things on the mailing list, I merely wanted to try to
> avoid the series getting buried. If a week is too frequent to re-bump a
> series, do you have a set of recommendations of how to best interact
> with your workflow?

Rafael (et al.)

I never heard back on this point of how you prefer your workflow to
proceed - that is, if I haven't heard anything in a couple weeks -
should I try to re-bump the thread?

Since this was sent around the time of the merge window, I realize
there were other things to occupy people's time.
Now that rc2 is out - I'm hoping that the dust has settled a bit, such
that there may be a cycle, or two to review this series.

Thanks for your time

Ben

>
> I'm just trying to balance people's time to review such things, with the
> volume of the list.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Ben
> --
> 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/
--
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/