linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 12/13] ACPI / init: Invoke early ACPI initialization earlier

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 22:09:16 +0800
From:   Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:     <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <mingo@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        <bhe@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>, <tokunaga.keiich@...fujitsu.com>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Julian Wollrath <jwollrath@....de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/13] ACPI / init: Invoke early ACPI initialization
 earlier

Hi Rafael,

At 08/25/2017 08:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:06:11 AM CEST Dou Liyang wrote:
[...]
>>>>
>>>> BTW,
>>>> 1) I found your commit b064a8fa77df (" ACPI / init: Switch over
>>>> platform to the ACPI mode later") split the ACPI early initialization
>>>> code into acpi_early_init() and acpi_subsystem_init(). Actually enabling
>>>> the ACPI subsystem is in acpi_subsystem_init().
>>>>
>>>> 2) As we discussed earlier, invoking acpi_put_table() is not good for
>>>> this situation.
>>>>
>>>> So I do this patch, Is that goot to you? Any comments will be welcome.
>>>>
>>>> If it is OK, As the patches need to be re-based, and I also found
>>>> several spelling mistake, I will send a new version next week.
>>>
>>> OK, but does it depend on anything?  Or does anything depend on it?
>>>
>>
>> It depends on nothing and can be considered independent.
>
> OK
>
> Please send it as an independent patch, then.
>
>> [11/13] patch in this series depends on it. [11/13] patch caused an
>> ACPI error, we used this patch to fix it.
>
> So the ordering of patches in the series should be different, then.
>
> It should be ordered so as to avoid triggering the warning at all,
> so this patch should go before the [11/13].

Yes, Indeed.

>
>>> It is [12/13] in a series, so it looks like it doesn't depend on the
>>> previous patches in it, but the next one may depend on it?  Which is the
>>> case?
>>>
>>
>> The second case(the next one may depend on it) is what I want.
>>
>> But, seems I made a mistake about the order of the patches. I should
>> put it before [11/13] to avoid the ACPI error.
>
> Right.
>
>> I will adjust the order of the patches in the next version, and post
>> the whole series to you.
>
> Please just CC it to linux-acpi.

Got it. Will just CC it to linux-acpi, and CC the whole series to you.

Thanks,
	dou.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
>
>