linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management

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]

Date:	Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:49 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
CC:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management_policy definition

Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> I think I mentioned on the list a couple weeks ago that I favor just 
> expanding the definition of link power management to include
> the notion of simply powering the entire port off rather
> than adding new knobs to sysfs.  I wrote this completely untested and
> very incomplete patch to give you a better idea of what I am proposing.
> This patch adds a new valid value of "power_off" for the existing
> link_power_management_policy sysfs entry:

Looks fine to me...  that would work nicely.

I think your patch is missing code to handle the transition from 
power_off to <something else>, though, right?

I'm quite happy with this approach.

	Jeff



--
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/