linux-kernel - Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.

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:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:01:52 +0000 (GMT)
From:	William Heimbigner <icxcnika@....tar.cc>
To:	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
cc:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Reasons to merge suspend2.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:

>> I didn't read your whole post, it's way too long, but I would like to see
>> your patch in mainline as an option to swsusp.  What would make this
>> infeasible?
>
> For one thing, Linus said not but yesterday that he doesn't want multiple
> competing suspend algorithms like this in the kernel at once. (If I parsed
> his message correctly, he doesn't want any in the kernel, but he's putting
> up with it because it seems somewhat needed.)

Would it be a feasible solution to have a very minimal and generic software 
suspend in the kernel, and then various userspace implementations could take 
care of this? Or is all of the software suspend code in the kernel absolutely 
necessary, such that this wouldn't work?

William Heimbigner
icxcnika@....tar.cc
-
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/