| 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: <200808142343.56505.oneukum@suse.de> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:43:55 +0200 From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, "Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, teheo@...ell.com Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Power management for SCSI Am Donnerstag 14 August 2008 17:47:02 schrieb Alan Stern: > > I don't really argue against flushing the caches. But I cannot that this would > > demand that we should implement autopsuspend for SCSI. It seems like > > overengineering to me. > > Think of it in two parts: idle-timeout detection and autosuspend. > Presumably you don't object to the idle-timeout detection (which is > needed for powering down links in general), and you don't argue against > the cache-flushing part of autosuspend. Taken together, that's about > 90% of my proposal. So what is the objectionable 10%? The core problem is that you insist on a rigid bottom-to-top flow of autosuspensions. That's good for systems like USB and PCI which are trees for PM purposes. It makes no sense for true busses with equal members on the bus. Regards Oliver -- 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