linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: imx: suspend/resume: use outer

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: <20171227020749.GU23070@X250>
Date:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:07:50 +0800
From:   Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
To:     Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>
Cc:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, "A.s. Dong" <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        "van.freenix@...il.com" <van.freenix@...il.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: imx: suspend/resume: use outer_disable/resume

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:36:29PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6sx.c b/arch/arm/mach-
> > > > imx/cpuidle-imx6sx.c
> > > > index c5a5c3a..edce5bd 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6sx.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6sx.c
> > > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static int imx6sx_idle_finish(unsigned long val)
> > > >          * to adding conditional code for L2 cache type,
> > > >          * just call flush_cache_all() is fine.
> > > >          */
> > > > -       flush_cache_all();
> > > > +//     flush_cache_all();
> > > 
> > > I think flush_cache_all is still needed, to flush L1 data, right?
> > > 
> > 
> > I thought it will be done in generic cpu_suspend.
> > See: __cpu_suspend_save()
> > 
> > So we still need it?
> > 
> 
> Shawn,
> 
> Do you have comments about it?

It seems that there are comments about this flush_cache_all() call right
above it.  To be safe, I would suggest to keep it as it is.

Shawn