| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:04:13 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> Cc: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tilman@...p.cc Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? On Sunday, 11 February 2007 07:46, Willy Tarreau wrote: [--snip--] > What I really think would be a clean solution would be sort of > a capability. Either the driver *is* suspend/resume-capable, and > the system can be suspended. Or it is not, and the system must > refuse to suspend. It should not be a problem to proceed like > this because drivers which will not support suspend will mainly > be those which will not have to. And if a user occasionnaly > complains that one driver does not support it, at least you will > have a good argument against its author to implement suspend. I agree, but the suspend/resume safeness has to be somehow indicated by the driver. We could add a flag for that, but it would require us to modify lots of existing drivers (unless there's something obvious I don't see). However, the driver can effectively say "I'm not suspend/resume-safe" by returning an error from .suspend(), in which case the system will automatically refuse to suspend. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists