linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm

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: <056ccf5c-6c6c-090b-6ca1-ab666021db48@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:17:01 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ARM, arm64: Remove arm_pm_restart()

On 9/16/19 12:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> This small series is preparatory work for a series that I'm working on
>>> which attempts to establish a formal framework for system restart and
>>> power off.
>>>
>>> Guenter has done a lot of good work in this area, but it never got
>>> merged. I think this set is a valuable addition to the kernel because
>>> it converts all odd providers to the established mechanism for restart.
>>>
>>> Since this is stretched across both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, as well as
>>> PSCI, and given the SoC/board level of functionality, I think it might
>>> make sense to take this through the ARM SoC tree in order to simplify
>>> the interdependencies. But it should also be possible to take patches
>>> 1-4 via their respective trees this cycle and patches 5-6 through the
>>> ARM and arm64 trees for the next cycle, if that's preferred.
>>>
>>
>> We tried this twice now, and it seems to go nowhere. What does it take
>> to get it applied ?
> 
> Can you send a pull request to soc@...nel.org after the merge window,
> with everyone else on Cc? If nobody objects, I'll merge it through
> the soc tree.
> 

Sure, I'll rebase and do that.

Thanks,
Guenter