| 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: <20070803120418.GB16802@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:04:18 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> Cc: linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] USB: Only enable autosuspend by default on certain device classes On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:44:02PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Freitag 03 August 2007 schrieb Matthew Garrett: > > It's certainly possible to do that, but it's also possible to have a > > userspace solution that whitelists devices. The question is whether the > > default kernel behaviour should be "Save power, but potentially break > > some of my devices" or "Don't break my devices, but use some more > > powre". > > If both options have drawbacks, IMHO we follow the standard, which > says that devices must support suspension. Except that lots of hardware doesn't follow the standard in this respect, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Personally, I think "Will break an unknown number of devices" is a significantly larger drawback than "Will consume a small quantity of additional power". -- 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