linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] DEV_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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 18:37:38 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, list@...ndingux.net,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] DEV_PM_OPS macros rework

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 5:32 PM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer., janv. 5 2022 at 10:17:37 +0000, Jonathan Cameron
> <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> a écrit :
> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 21:42:06 +0000
> > Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hi,
> >>
> >>  This set of commits rework a bit the *_DEV_PM_OPS() macros that were
> >>  introduced recently.
> >>
> >>  - Remove the DEFINE_UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS() macro, since I highly
> >> doubt
> >>    anything is going to use it. The macro it replaces
> >>    (UNIVERSAL_DEV_PM_OPS) seems to only be used incorrectly in code
> >> that
> >>    hasn't been updated in ages.
> >>
> >>  - Remove the static qualifier in DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS, so that
> >> the
> >>    macro is more in line with what's done elsewhere in the kernel.
> >>
> >>  - Add a DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS() macro, for use with drivers
> >> that use
> >>    runtime PM, and use
> >> runtime_pm_force_suspend/runtime_pm_force_resume
> >>    as their system sleep callbacks.
> >>
> >>  - Add EXPORT_*_DEV_PM_OPS macros, which can be used for when the
> >>    underlying dev_pm_ops is to be exported. With CONFIG_PM set, the
> >>    symbol is exported as you would expect. With CONFIG_PM disabled,
> >> the
> >>    dev_pm_ops is garbage-collected along with the suspend/resume
> >>    callbacks.
> >>
> >>  - Update the two places which used DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS, to add
> >> back
> >>    the "static" qualifier that was stripped from the macro.
> >>
> >>  - Update one driver to use EXPORT_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS(), just to
> >> showcase
> >>    how to use this macro in the case where a dev_pm_ops is to be
> >>    exported.
> >>    Note that the driver itself is GPL, and the symbol is only used
> >> within
> >>    a GPL driver, so I would assume the symbol would be exported as
> >> GPL.
> >>    But it was not the case in the original code, so I did not change
> >> the
> >>    behaviour.
> >>
> >>  Feedback welcome.
> >
> > Comments on individual patches (in particular bad pick for that final
> > example ;)
> >
> > Given how late we are in the cycle, I'd argue we 'need' patches 2 (+
> > 5,6 which
> > should probably be all one patch to avoid introducing then fixing a
> > warning in
> > different patches).  The others could wait for the following cycle if
> > needed.
>
> Ok, should I V2 with patches 2/5/6 merged together?

Yes, please!