linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions with system sleep

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, 26 Jun 2011 00:58:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / Runtime: Update documentation of interactions
 with system sleep

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> 

A few tiny nit-picks..

> The documents describing the interactions between runtime PM and
> system sleep generally refer to the model in which the system sleep
> state is entered through a global firmware or hardware operation.
> As a result, some recommendations given in there are not entirely
> suitable for systems in which this is not the case.  Update the
> documentation take the existence of those systems into accout.
> 

I believe this should read "... documentation to take the existence of 
those systems ..."


<...>
>  
> +On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware
> +or hardware operation.  Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power
> +states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way.  Then, the system sleep
> +state effectively follows from the states the hardware components end up in
> +and the system is woken up from that state by a hardware interrupt or a similar
> +mechanism entirely under the kernel's control.  As a result, the kernel never
> +gives control away and the states of all devices during resume are precisely
> +known to it.  If that is the case and none of the situations listed above takes
> +place (in particular, if the system is not waking up from hibernation), it may
> +be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system
> +suspend began in the suspended state.
> +

You are refering to device*s*, so I believe this last bit should be "... 
in the suspended states".

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
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/