linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / QoS: Drop PM_QOS_FLAG_REMOTE

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: <1840235.EQbbjP2bUY@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:04:42 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / QoS: Drop PM_QOS_FLAG_REMOTE_WAKEUP

On Friday, October 13, 2017 8:32:18 AM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 13 October 2017 at 02:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > The PM QoS flag PM_QOS_FLAG_REMOTE_WAKEUP is not used consistently
> > and the vast majority of code simply assumes that remote wakeup
> > should be enabled for devices in runtime suspend if they can
> > generate wakeup signals, so drop it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> With a minor nitpick below, please add:
> 
> Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/device_pm.c    |    6 ++----
> >  drivers/base/power/domain.c |    4 +---
> >  drivers/base/power/sysfs.c  |   28 ----------------------------
> >  include/linux/pm_qos.h      |    1 -
> >  4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 
> I found the flag to also be mentioned in the
> Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.txt, could please remove that
> part as well.

Right, and not only there.

That's how it goes when you try to document everything dutifully. :-)

I'll send an update shortly.

Thanks,
Rafael