[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WHznCX+TLsrwnW=rh+1tc1S3hGi32Te1Asoh9y68Ko3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:32:30 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
moritz.fischer@...us.com, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] test: add new driver_data load tester
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com> wrote:
>
> It would seems to make sense to me to only need to verify files when read
> for the first time, once its cache I don't see why we would re-verify them ?
To be clear, the fw cache feature reads the files from the fs prior to
suspend, and then uses the in-memory cache on resume. So it would make
sense to me only to rely on fw verification on resume then when the fw
cache is used ?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists