linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 34/35] tick: Provide tick_suspend

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: <7465245.qd0pH8CNtP@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:22:26 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] tick: Provide tick_suspend_local()

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 02:35:24 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:31:42PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:15:09PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > > 
> > > This function is intended to use by the freezer once the freezer folks
> > > solved their race issues. Also required to get rid of the ARM BL
> > > switcher tick hackery.
> > 
> > Totally agree with the patch(es), but I noticed that the ARM bL switcher
> > does not depend on PM_SLEEP, so I do not think you can compile
> > tick_{suspend/resume}_local() out if !PM_SLEEP, unless dependency
> > is enforced by the ARM bL switcher config but I do not think that
> > the config dependency really exists, Nico please correct me if I am
> > wrong.
> 
> Ah I see, the headers seem to do the right thing and declare the
> function in core (GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS) with a comment.
> 
> But then the patch continues defining the functions under PM_SLEEP.
> 
> I wonder why the build robot has not reported fail on this..
> 
> Would the below make sense?

That needs to be done on top of the suspend-to-idle material that has just
been merged.

Why don't you drop the PM_SLEEP-related changes from the series for the time
being and let's clean things up top of it?  That should be more straightforward
I think.

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/