linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/10] x86/acpi: Move acpi_wakeup

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: <20251029111358.GDaQH29lURT0p_WWsb@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:13:58 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
	Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	Chris Oo <cho@...rosoft.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kas@...nel.org>,
	linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/10] x86/acpi: Move acpi_wakeup_cpu() and helpers to
 smpwakeup.c

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:58:16PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Right. All the functions in the file start with the acpi_ prefix. It could
> be kept under arch/x86/kernel/acpi/. The Kconfig symbol X86_MAILBOX_WAKEUP
> would have to live in arch/x86/Kconfig as there is no Kconfig file under
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi. ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP is arch/x86/Kconfig.
> 
> Does that sound acceptable?

Right, this looks kinda weird. You have devicetree thing using ACPI code,
you're trying to carve it out but then it is ACPI code anyway. So why even do
that?

You can simply leave ACPI enabled on that configuration. I don't see yet what
the point for the split is - saving memory, or...?

> Thank you for your feedback, Boris,

Sure, np. Trying my best. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette