linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.29

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:	Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:25:17 -0700
From:	Alex Goebel <alex.goebel@...il.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29

On 3/28/09, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> Well, for the time being, why not base considerations for performance,
> interactivity, energy consumption, graceful restoration of application
> state etc. on the assumption that kernel crashes are suitably rare?  (At
> least on systems where data loss would be of concern.)

Absolutely! That's what I thought all the time when following this
(meanwhile quite grotesque) discussion. Even for ordinary
home/office/laptop/desktop users (!=kernel developers), kernel crashes
are simply not a realistic scenario any more to optimize anything for
(which is due to the good work you guys are doing in making/keeping
the kernel stable).

Alex
--
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/