linux-kernel - Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/2] PM / QoS: Device resume latency framework fix

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:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:09:48 +0200
From:   Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/2] PM / QoS: Device resume latency framework fix

On 07/11/17 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2017 2:46:48 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 2, 2017 12:00:27 AM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> This series is a replacement for commit 0cc2b4e5a020 (PM / QoS: Fix device
>>>> resume latency PM QoS) that had to be reverted due to problems introduced by it.
>>>>
>>>> This time the genpd PM QoS governor is first updated to be more consistent
>>>> and the PM QoS changes are made on top of that which simplifies the second
>>>> patch quite a bit.
>>>>
>>>> This is based on the linux-next branch from linux-pm.git as of now (should
>>>> also apply to the current mainline just fine).
>>>>
>>>> Please test if you can or let me know if you have any comments.
>>>
>>> The v2 removes a couple of redundant checks from the first patch (and add
>>> comments to explain why the checks are not needed) and fixes up the
>>> "no constraint" value collision with a valid constraint multiplied by
>>> NSEC_PER_USEC in the second patch.
>>>
>>> Please test if possible and let me know about any issues.
>>
>> With this series, the 3 issues I reported before do not happen.
>>
>> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>>
>> Thank you.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Rafael
> 

The latest patches (#1 v3 and #2 v4) seem to work fine in my sanity 
tests also.

Tested-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
--
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki