linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: Rework default handling of suspend and resume

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:	Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:47:18 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: Rework default handling of suspend and resume

On Sunday, 7 of December 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 10:00:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > So, to fix the issue at hand, I'd like the $subject patch to go first.  Then,
> > > there is a major update of the new framework waiting for .29 in the Greg's
> > > tree (that's the main reason why nobody uses it so far, BTW) and I'd really
> > > prefer it to go next.  After it's been merged, I'm going to add the mandatory
> > > suspend-resume things (save state and go to a low power state on suspend,
> > > restore state on resume) to the new framework in a separete patch.
> > > 
> > > Is this plan acceptable?
> > 
> > Sounds good to me. And assuming Jesse/Greg are all aboard, I'll just wait 
> > for the pull requests from Jesse and Greg.
> 
> No objection from me, I'll wait for Jesse to "go first" in the .29 merge
> window.

Unfortunately, the merge of the $subject patch with the one in your tree
results in code that doesn't compile.  Namely, some lines of code that the
$subject patch relies on are removed by the patch in your tree.

If there is no objection from Jesse and if you don't mind, I'll prepare a
version of the $subject patch on top of the patch in your tree and send it to
you.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/