linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / i915: Skip kernel VT switch during suspend/resume if KMS is used

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:	Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:27:20 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
	airlied@...ux.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / i915: Skip kernel VT switch during suspend/resume
 if KMS is used

> > But in that case we should be able to disable the VT switch disable
> > path; we just have to check each driver as it's loaded.
> 
> OK, what the right sequence of checks would be in that case and where to place
> them?

Why are we even driving a vt switch direct from the suspend/resume
logic ? The problem starts there. If it was being handled off the device
suspend/resume method then there wouldn't be a mess to start with ?

Start at the beginning

- Why do we switch to arbitarily chosen 'last vt'
- Why isn't vt related suspend/resume handled by the device

Alan
--
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/