| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200704260033.22378.a1426z@gawab.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:33:22 +0300 From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, William Heimbigner <icxcnika@....tar.cc> Cc: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Reasons to merge suspend2. Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi! > > >>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? > > Yes please. If you want suspend-over-nfs or whatever, just add it to > the userspace; we have enough support in kernel now. The only way I can think of supporting this, would probably be via an initramfs trick. But, if you think suspend-over-nfs is possible from user-space, then why should there be any need for swsusp in the kernel? Thanks! -- Al - 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