| 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: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 01:34:24 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:17:04PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Leave the process blocked and defer any i/o until after resume. Why does > >it need to be any more complicated than that? > > It gets complicated when this has to be added and TESTED in EVERY > driver. The implied contract for drivers previously was that their > device would not get accessed after it was suspended until it had been > resumed first. This proposed change violates that. No, that's only ever been true for ACPI systems. It's never been true elsewhere, and it won't be true for anything implementing any sort of runtime power management. > I don't think this sort of handling is something that individual drivers > should have to deal with (at least not ones that are part of a framework > like USB, libata, etc.) I'd agree there. Driver midlayers (where they exist) are the appropriate place to handle this. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org - 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