Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 03:33:31 PM Ben Guthro wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote:
> >> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
> >> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get
> >> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so
> >> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
> >> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
> >>
> >> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
> >> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
> >> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that
> >> alternative interface).
> >>
> >> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
> >> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
> >> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> >> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski
> >> Cc: Gang Wei
> >> Cc: Shane Wang
> >> Cc: Bob Moore
> >> Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki
> >> Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org
> >> Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>
> >> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
> >> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
> >>Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
> >> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
> >>Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
> >>More bool vs u8 fixes
> >>
> >> Ben Guthro (5):
> >> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
> >> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
> >> acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter
> >> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
> >> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
> >
> > The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want
> > acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA
> > is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it.
> >
> > This means that patch [1/5] goes away.
> >
> > That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which
> > is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep.
> >
> > For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the
> > way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of
> > the arguments is simply disgusting.
> >
> > To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep()
> > specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen
> > use that.
> >
> > This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the
> > upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be
> > just
> > a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be
> > such a big deal.
> >
>
> Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at
> hand,
No problem, although I'm not exactly happy with it.
> without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not
> also needed)
Sure, it is needed.
> I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address
> these concerns, and submit a new series.
Thanks!
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote:
>> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
>> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get
>> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so
>> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
>> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
>>
>> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
>> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
>> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that
>> alternative interface).
>>
>> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
>> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
>> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski
>> Cc: Gang Wei
>> Cc: Shane Wang
>> Cc: Bob Moore
>> Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki
>> Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
>>
>> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
>> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
>>Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
>> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
>>Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
>>More bool vs u8 fixes
>>
>> Ben Guthro (5):
>> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
>> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
>> acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter
>> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
>> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
>
> The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want
> acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA
> is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it.
>
> This means that patch [1/5] goes away.
>
> That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which
> is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep.
>
> For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the
> way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of
> the arguments is simply disgusting.
>
> To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep()
> specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen
> use that.
>
> This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the
> upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just
> a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be
> such a big deal.
>
Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at hand,
without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not also
needed)
I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address these
concerns, and submit a new series.
Thanks
Ben
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote:
> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get
> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so
> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
>
> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that
> alternative interface).
>
> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski
> Cc: Gang Wei
> Cc: Shane Wang
> Cc: Bob Moore
> Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki
> Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
> More bool vs u8 fixes
>
> Ben Guthro (5):
> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
> acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter
> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want
acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA
is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it.
This means that patch [1/5] goes away.
That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which
is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep.
For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the
way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of
the arguments is simply disgusting.
To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep()
specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen
use that.
This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the
upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just
a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be
such a big deal.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote: In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the hook function to distinguish extended from legacy sleep. This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that alternative interface). The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 (ACPI: support v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface) on the master branch of git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro benjamin.gut...@citrix.com Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com Cc: Richard L Maliszewski richard.l.maliszew...@intel.com Cc: Gang Wei gang@intel.com Cc: Shane Wang shane.w...@intel.com Cc: Bob Moore robert.mo...@intel.com Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL More bool vs u8 fixes Ben Guthro (5): acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it. This means that patch [1/5] goes away. That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep. For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of the arguments is simply disgusting. To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep() specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen use that. This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote: In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the hook function to distinguish extended from legacy sleep. This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that alternative interface). The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 (ACPI: support v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface) on the master branch of git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro benjamin.gut...@citrix.com Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com Cc: Richard L Maliszewski richard.l.maliszew...@intel.com Cc: Gang Wei gang@intel.com Cc: Shane Wang shane.w...@intel.com Cc: Bob Moore robert.mo...@intel.com Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL More bool vs u8 fixes Ben Guthro (5): acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it. This means that patch [1/5] goes away. That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep. For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of the arguments is simply disgusting. To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep() specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen use that. This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal. Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at hand, without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not also needed) I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address these concerns, and submit a new series. Thanks Ben Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 03:33:31 PM Ben Guthro wrote: On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote: On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote: In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the hook function to distinguish extended from legacy sleep. This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that alternative interface). The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 (ACPI: support v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface) on the master branch of git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro benjamin.gut...@citrix.com Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com Cc: Richard L Maliszewski richard.l.maliszew...@intel.com Cc: Gang Wei gang@intel.com Cc: Shane Wang shane.w...@intel.com Cc: Bob Moore robert.mo...@intel.com Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL More bool vs u8 fixes Ben Guthro (5): acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it. This means that patch [1/5] goes away. That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep. For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of the arguments is simply disgusting. To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep() specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen use that. This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal. Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at hand, No problem, although I'm not exactly happy with it. without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not also needed) Sure, it is needed. I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address these concerns, and submit a new series. Thanks! Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with
reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get
synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so
requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the
hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep.
This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as
failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface,
there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that
alternative interface).
The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support
v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of
git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git.
Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Cc: Richard L Maliszewski
Cc: Gang Wei
Cc: Shane Wang
Cc: Bob Moore
Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki
Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change
v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems
Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8
v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies
Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL
More bool vs u8 fixes
Ben Guthro (5):
acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code
acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path
acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter
x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep
xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available
arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c |6 +-
drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c |7 +++
drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c|3 +--
drivers/acpi/osl.c | 16
drivers/xen/acpi.c | 26 +-
include/acpi/acpiosxf.h |6 ++
include/linux/acpi.h |9 +++--
include/xen/acpi.h |4 ++--
include/xen/interface/platform.h |7 ---
9 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems
In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the hook function to distinguish extended from legacy sleep. This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that alternative interface). The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 (ACPI: support v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface) on the master branch of git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro benjamin.gut...@citrix.com Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com Cc: Richard L Maliszewski richard.l.maliszew...@intel.com Cc: Gang Wei gang@intel.com Cc: Shane Wang shane.w...@intel.com Cc: Bob Moore robert.mo...@intel.com Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org Cc: tboot-de...@lists.sourceforge.net v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL More bool vs u8 fixes Ben Guthro (5): acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c |6 +- drivers/acpi/acpica/hwesleep.c |7 +++ drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c|3 +-- drivers/acpi/osl.c | 16 drivers/xen/acpi.c | 26 +- include/acpi/acpiosxf.h |6 ++ include/linux/acpi.h |9 +++-- include/xen/acpi.h |4 ++-- include/xen/interface/platform.h |7 --- 9 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) -- 1.7.9.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
