linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] power: APM_EMULATION does not depend on PM

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: <8245283.jd8eAvEnqE@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:56:22 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] power: APM_EMULATION does not depend on PM

On Monday, January 25, 2016 04:48:28 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The APM emulation code does multiple things, and some of them depend on
> PM_SLEEP, while the battery management does not. However, selecting
> the symbol like SHARPSL_PM does causes a Kconfig warning:
> 
> warning: (SHARPSL_PM && PMAC_APM_EMU) selects APM_EMULATION which has unmet direct dependencies (PM && SYS_SUPPORTS_APM_EMULATION)
> 
> From all I can tell, this is completely harmless, and we can simply allow
> APM_EMULATION to be enabled here, even if PM is not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

Applied, thanks!

Rafael