linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] intel_idle: introduce 'no

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: <720944c4-48b2-4d1c-8a02-d81416ed7484@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:56:02 -0500
From: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
To: dedekind1@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] intel_idle: introduce 'no_native' module parameter



On 2/8/25 5:37 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-02-07 at 12:13 -0500, David Arcari wrote:
>>> And if kernel was not configured with ACPI support, are these not
>>> recognized? Or
>>> they are just no-op basically?
>>
>> They are a no-op - the flags are all set to false so ACPI C-state tables
>> are ignored.
> 
> It would be nice to mention this too. Otherwise it sounds a bit incomplete. Like
> this:
> 
> 	If A then B. (nothing about "else").
> 
> Better way:
> 
> 	If A then B, else C.
> 
> :-)

I actually took that from what was already there.

So I can add "In the case that ACPI is not configured these flags have 
no impact on functionality."

Does that work?

-DA

> 
>>>
>> Sure - so is this better:
>>
>> ``use_acpi`` - No-op in ACPI mode, the driver will consult ACPI tabees
>> for C-states on/off status in native mode.
> 
> Yes, thanks!
>