linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1507141756170.8160-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PM / Runtime: Add pm_runtime_enable_recursive

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

> > We may want to do the direct_complete_default thing in a different way.
> > For example, the PM core could automatically set the direct_complete
> > flag if a device has _none_ of the system suspend callbacks (i.e., no
> > prepare, suspend, suspend_late, suspend_noirq, resume_noirq,
> > resume_early, resume, or complete).  Although it would be a little
> > awkward to check this, it would be safer than inheriting
> > direct_complete_default from the parent and it ought to solve Tomeu's
> > problem just as well.
> 
> Yeah, I think this is an improvement. Will give it a try.

Sounds good.

> > Here's a proposed patch to illustrate what I have in mind.  Since it
> > removes the only usage of pm_runtime_suspended_if_enabled(), it also
> > removes the definition of that function.
> 
> Will this patch be picked up as-is or should I add it to my series
> with a proper changelog?

You can add it to your series with my S-O-B:

Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>

Alan Stern

--
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/