linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/9] PM: Move pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() under CONFIG_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: <CAPDyKFpnvg3w9B_R7F-xrhXU+upFSJv5c=buVR5FyFnqoach_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:20:29 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/9] PM: Move pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 12:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:05 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 11:41, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:38 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 21:25, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Since pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() and pm_runtime_need_not_resume()
> > > > > are only used during system-wide PM transitions, there is no reason to
> > > > > compile them in if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is unset.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accordingly, move them all under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP and make the static
> > > > > inline stubs for pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume() return an error
> > > > > to indicate that they should not be used outside CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just realized that there seems to be some drivers that actually make
> > > > use of pm_runtime_force_suspend() from their ->remove() callbacks.
> > > >
> > > > To not break them, we probably need to leave this code to stay under CONFIG_PM.
> > >
> > > OK, pm_runtime_force_suspend() need not be under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
> > > That's not the case for the other two functions though AFAICS.
> >
> > Right, but maybe better to keep them to avoid confusion?
>
> There really is no point holding pm_runtime_need_not_resume() outside
> CONFIG_PM_SLEEP and pm_runtime_force_resume() really should not be
> used anywhere outside system resume flows.

Right, I am fine moving it if you insist.

>
> > At least the corresponding flag is needed.
>
> What flag do you mean?  If pm_runtime_force_suspend() does not go
> under CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, needs_force_resume will not go under it either
> (so I'll drop the next patch altogether).

Yes, that's my point. needs_force_resume needs to stay within CONFIG_PM.

Kind regards
Uffe