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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <484DEC2C.2090207@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:51:24 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] expand link_power_management_policy definition

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.

I agree this is the right place to implement the control.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/