Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend mode

[boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx]

On 9/25/20 3:04 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:17:36PM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:18:05PM -0400, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not 
>>> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know 
>>> the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/21/20 5:54 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the above suggestion. You are right I didn't find a way to 
>>>> declare
>>>> a global state either. I just broke the above check in 2 so that once we 
>>>> have
>>>> support for ARM we should be able to remove aarch64 condition easily. Let 
>>>> me
>>>> know if I am missing nay corner cases with this one.
>>>>
>>>> static int xen_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *notifier,
>>>>       unsigned long pm_event, void *unused)
>>>> {
>>>>     int ret = NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>     if (!xen_hvm_domain() || xen_initial_domain())
>>>>       ret = NOTIFY_BAD;
>>>>     if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && (pm_event == PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE || 
>>>> pm_event == HIBERNATION_PREPARE))
>>>>       ret = NOTIFY_BAD;
>>>>
>>>>     return ret;
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> This will allow PM suspend to proceed on x86.
>> Right!! Missed it.
>> Also, wrt KASLR stuff, that issue is still seen sometimes but I haven't had
>> bandwidth to dive deep into the issue and fix it.


So what's the plan there? You first mentioned this issue early this year and 
judged by your response it is not clear whether you will ever spend time 
looking at it.


>>  I seem to have lost your email
>> in my inbox hence covering the question here.
>>>
> Can I add your Reviewed-by or Signed-off-by to it?


Are you asking me to add my R-b to the broken code above?


-boris