| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 07:00:36 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / wakeup: Unify device_init_wakeup() for PM_SLEEP and
!PM_SLEEP
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:06:28AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:42:16PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:51:58PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > Previously the CONFIG_PM_SLEEP and !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP device_init_wakeup()
> > > implementations differed in confusing ways:
> > >
> > > - The PM_SLEEP version checked for a NULL device pointer and returned
> > > -EINVAL, while the !PM_SLEEP version did not and would simply
> > > dereference a NULL pointer.
> > >
> > > - When called with "false", the !PM_SLEEP version cleared "capable" and
> > > "enable" in the opposite order of the PM_SLEEP version. That was
> > > harmless because for !PM_SLEEP they're simple assignments, but it's
> > > unnecessary confusion.
> > >
> > > Use a simplified version of the PM_SLEEP implementation for both cases.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/power/wakeup.c | 30 ------------------------------
> > > include/linux/pm_wakeup.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > > index 11a4ffe91367..e3befa2c1b66 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> > > @@ -500,36 +500,6 @@ void device_set_wakeup_capable(struct device *dev, bool capable)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_set_wakeup_capable);
> > >
> > > -/**
> > > - * device_init_wakeup - Device wakeup initialization.
> > > - * @dev: Device to handle.
> > > - * @enable: Whether or not to enable @dev as a wakeup device.
> > > - *
> > > - * By default, most devices should leave wakeup disabled. The exceptions are
> > > - * devices that everyone expects to be wakeup sources: keyboards, power buttons,
> > > - * possibly network interfaces, etc. Also, devices that don't generate their
> > > - * own wakeup requests but merely forward requests from one bus to another
> > > - * (like PCI bridges) should have wakeup enabled by default.
> > > - */
> > > -int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> > > -{
> > > - int ret = 0;
> > > -
> > > - if (!dev)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > -
> > > - if (enable) {
> > > - device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
> > > - ret = device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> > > - } else {
> > > - device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > > - device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - return ret;
> > > -}
> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_init_wakeup);
> > > -
> > > /**
> > > * device_set_wakeup_enable - Enable or disable a device to wake up the system.
> > > * @dev: Device to handle.
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > > index 196a157456aa..77f4849e3418 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pm_wakeup.h
> > > @@ -109,7 +109,6 @@ extern struct wakeup_source *wakeup_sources_walk_next(struct wakeup_source *ws);
> > > extern int device_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev);
> > > extern int device_wakeup_disable(struct device *dev);
> > > extern void device_set_wakeup_capable(struct device *dev, bool capable);
> > > -extern int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool val);
> > > extern int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable);
> > > extern void __pm_stay_awake(struct wakeup_source *ws);
> > > extern void pm_stay_awake(struct device *dev);
> > > @@ -167,13 +166,6 @@ static inline int device_set_wakeup_enable(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool val)
> > > -{
> > > - device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, val);
> > > - device_set_wakeup_enable(dev, val);
> > > - return 0;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static inline bool device_may_wakeup(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > return dev->power.can_wakeup && dev->power.should_wakeup;
> > > @@ -217,4 +209,27 @@ static inline void pm_wakeup_hard_event(struct device *dev)
> > > return pm_wakeup_dev_event(dev, 0, true);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * device_init_wakeup - Device wakeup initialization.
> > > + * @dev: Device to handle.
> > > + * @enable: Whether or not to enable @dev as a wakeup device.
> > > + *
> > > + * By default, most devices should leave wakeup disabled. The exceptions are
> > > + * devices that everyone expects to be wakeup sources: keyboards, power buttons,
> > > + * possibly network interfaces, etc. Also, devices that don't generate their
> > > + * own wakeup requests but merely forward requests from one bus to another
> > > + * (like PCI bridges) should have wakeup enabled by default.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline int device_init_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> > > +{
> > > + if (enable) {
> > > + device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
> > > + return device_wakeup_enable(dev);
> > > + } else {
> > > + device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> > > + device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, false);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Why are you moving this to be inline? Why not just drop the "other"
> > version and stick with the .c version?
>
> That would definitely be simpler but drivers/base/power/wakeup.c is
> only built when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=y, so a .c version there by itself
> isn't sufficient. I should have mentioned that in the commit log.
Ah, missed that, sorry, nevermind :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists