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

Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:08:16 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>,
	Richard L Maliszewski <richard.l.maliszewski@...el.com>
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>,
	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 Monday, July 22, 2013 08:44:08 AM Ben Guthro wrote:
> 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.

I've just replied to a [0/5] from a previous series, here:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=137493312722239&w=2

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/