| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Frédéric Riss <frederic.riss@...il.com>, Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, len.brown@...el.com Subject: Re: 2.6.18 suspend regression on Intel Macs On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > "fix" for some value of the word. The value would be every _meaningful_ value. > The problem is that this is very much against the spec, and also quite > likely breaks a bunch of machines... No, it was not shown to break a single machine, and since the SCI bit was supposed to be on, it's a no-op on any non-broken hardware. > If we do this we probably should at least key this of some DMI > identification for the mac mini.. No. That would be silly. Having _conditional_ code is not only bigger, it's orders of magnitude more complex and likely to break. It's much better to say: "We know at least one machine needs this" than it is to say "We know machine X needs this", because the latter has extra complexity that just doesn't buy you anything. It's much better to treat everybody the same, if that works. That way, you don't have different code-paths. Linus - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists