linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

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, 1 Aug 2010 17:29:50 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	swetland@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	florian@...kler.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:38:34PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > I should have made a stronger point:
> > "power-aware" is _not_ a good
> > > > term for these applications. 
> 
> Strongly disagree.  The whole point is that they
> ARE VERY MUCH AWARE and interact with a power
> policy to achieve goals.
> 
> Like refusing to power down active subsystems,
> or actively powering down inactive ones.
> Q.E.D. ... "aware".

My initial thoughts was along the same lines as yours, but after thinking
about it, the distinction between an application that controls its own
behavior ("power-aware application") and an application that controls the
system's behavior ("PM-driving application") seemed well worth its weight.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/