linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

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: <2782801.UzoMhgfu56@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Fri, 02 May 2014 14:09:35 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another
> >> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out.
> >> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes
> >> a nested indentation level.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> >
> > Well, this conflicts with
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/
> >
> > which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to
> > return negative values because of
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/
> >
> > (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).
> >
> > Any ideas how to resolve that?
> 
> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before 
> than mines then I will refresh and resend them.

Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle
than the scheduler, but either way would be fine.

> I am open to any other suggestion.

Please see the other message I've just sent. :-)

-- 
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/