linux-kernel - Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

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:	Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:53:45 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

On Sunday 20 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > OK, so this means we can just forget about suspending/resuming i8042
> > asynchronously, which is a pity, because that gave us some real suspend
> > speedup on my test systems.
> 
> No. What it means is that you shouldn't try to come up with these idiotic 
> scenarios just trying to make trouble for yourself,

I haven't.  I've just asked Dmitry for his opinion and got it.  The fact that
you don't like it doesn't mean it's actually "idiotic".

> and using it as an excuse for crap.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but whatever.

> I suggest you try to treat the i8042 controller async, and see if it is 
> problematic.

I already have and I don't see problems with it, but quite obviously I can't
test all possible configurations out there.

> If it isn't, don't do that then. But we actually have no real 
> reason to believe that it would be problematic, at least on a PC where the 
> actual logic is on the SB (presumably behind the LPC controller).
> 
> Why would it be?

The embedded controller may depend on it.
 
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/