linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users

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: <20070801165352.GB21219@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:53:52 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	edwintorok@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Expose Power Management Policy option to users

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:18:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> The other comment is that power saving seems to be a property of the
> transport rather than the host.  If you do it in the transport classes,
> then you can expose all the knobs the actual transport possesses (which
> is, unfortunately, none for quite a few SCSI transports).

Would it save any power to negotiate down to, say, FAST-20 for the SPI
transport?  Or to negotiate narrow instead of wide, so fewer cables have
to be powered?

-- 
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
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/