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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jmu4onvrp_it=xTHsScE98AjDkCg00Tdhhtiz93b=aqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 21:56:22 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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>, 
	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, Nov 10, 2025 at 8:47 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:49:38AM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > I apologize for my late reply. Also, I am sorry I was not clear. I needed to
> > consult with a few stakeholders whether they could live with the increase in
> > size resulting from having CONFIG_ACPI=y. They can.
> >
> > If it is OK with Rafael, I plan to post a new version that drops this patch and
> > adds the necessary function stubs for the !CONFIG_ACPI case.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Yeah, sounds good.

> It is the simplest thing to do. If the size increase bothers someone, we can
> always do the more involved refactoring later.

So long as they have a good enough justification for it that is.