linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] PM / core: Add NEVER_SKIP and SMART

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]

Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:26:20 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] PM / core: Add NEVER_SKIP and SMART_PREPARE driver flags

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:15:43 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:28:52 AM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >  struct dev_pm_info {
> > > >  	pm_message_t		power_state;
> > > >  	unsigned int		can_wakeup:1;
> > > > @@ -561,6 +580,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> > > >  	bool			is_late_suspended:1;
> > > >  	bool			early_init:1;	/* Owned by the PM core */
> > > >  	bool			direct_complete:1;	/* Owned by the PM core */
> > > > +	unsigned int		driver_flags;
> > > 
> > > Minor nit, u32 or u64?
> > 
> > u32 I think, will update.
> > 
> > BTW, there's a mess in this struct overall and I'd like all of the bit fileds
> > to be the same type (and that shouldn't be bool IMO :-)).
> > 
> > Do you prefer u32 or unsinged int?
> 
> I always prefer an explicit size for variables, unless it's a "generic
> loop" type thing.  So I'll always say "u32" for this.
> 
> And cleaning up the structure would be great, it's grown over time in
> odd ways as you point out.

OK, but that will be separate from this work.

Thanks,
Rafael