linux-kernel - Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

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]

Message-Id: <1171059433.8675.195.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:17:13 +0100
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	nigel@...el.suspend2.net
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
> wrong)..
> 
> Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
> implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
> putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?

to a large degree, a device driver that doesn't suspend is better than
no device driver at all, right?
now.. if you want to make the core warn about it, that's very fair

-
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/