linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] PM / sleep: Go direct

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: <CAAObsKBZLnRBQA-nDzWG1SEyjaR6W68XnS6vBpES=WEQQSWgiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:59:48 +0200
From:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	martyn.welch@...labora.co.uk,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] PM / sleep: Go direct_complete if driver has no callbacks

On 30 September 2015 at 15:05, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 01:33:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 30 September 2015 at 11:58, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -1369,6 +1372,8 @@ int pm_genpd_remove_device(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
>> >
>> >         genpd_free_dev_data(dev, gpd_data);
>> >
>> > +       device_check_pm_callbacks(dev);
>> > +
>> >         return 0;
>>
>> I can't tell whether this is an interesting feature to use for devices
>> that gets attached to the ACPI PM domain. Although, you currently
>> doesn't deal with that case, and too me I think this looks a bit
>> weird/unsymmetrical.
>
> Good point.
>
> It needs to be done in every situation where a PM domain is or can be used.
>
> I guess we might require all PM domains to be attached to devices after
> a successful probe at the latest (no PM domains should be attached/detached
> after probe succeeds IOW), in which case it should be sufficient to do the
> device_check_pm_callbacks() thing each time after probe successds.
>
> Thoughts?

Sound good to me. How were you thinking of doing that? Manually
checking that that's currently the case and adding a WARN() if a
pm_domain is attached to a device that has been probed already?

Thanks,

Tomeu
--
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/