linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

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]

Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:06:02 -0800
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient.  And since they've already
>> >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over
>> >> > again.  That doesn't make them any better.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us
>> >> to ship a product.
>> >
>> > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your
>> > product.
>>
>> Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not
>> need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the
>> feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take
>> much longer before it is usable by anyone.
>
> Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means
> "we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner".

I think this could go either way. If the system is usable, it may get
more use from developers that know how to improve a specific subsystem
to not use timeouts. Or, it may be considered good enough, and nobody
bothers coming up with a correct solution. I think the latter is what
you are worried will happen.

>
>> >> I don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline
>> >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in
>> >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many
>> >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I
>> >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use.
>> >
>> > OK, please resubmit the patches, then.
>>
>> I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename
>> the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more
>> agreement on the timeout issue first.
>
> I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are
> ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end.

No, I think many uses of timeouts are a ugly hack, not all, but OK I
will try to move timeout support to a separate patch.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/