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]

Date:	Fri, 02 May 2014 15:35:23 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.

Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these 
modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be 
shared between sched and pm ?

>> I am open to any other suggestion.
>
> Please see the other message I've just sent. :-)
>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/