| 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: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:54:36 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Thursday, 5 July 2007 02:15, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki writes: > > > This is incompatible with the code in kernel/power/main.c, since we only > > disable the nonboot CPUs after devices have been suspended. Do you think that > > your framework can be modified to work without disabling the nonboot CPUs > > by the user space? > > Sure. It was a "if it can be done in userspace, do it in userspace" > kind of decision, but I'm not wedded to it. > > I actually do want to converge to using the generic suspend-to-ram > code on powerbooks. I just want to avoid causing regressions for > powerbook users, including myself. :) Okay, but my question is this: Would that be possible, within your framework, to disable the nonboot CPUs _after_ suspending devices? Can you please point me to your high-level suspend code? Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - 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