linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

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]

Message-Id: <200902212120.37684.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:20:35 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>,
	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend

On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday 21 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Friday 20 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
[--snip--]
> >> > The idea is to have both /sys/power/state and /sys/power/sleep at the same
> >> > time, where /sys/power/state will work just like it does right now.  Sure,
> >> > there must be mutual exclusion between the two, but that's a matter of
> >> > implementation IMO.
> >>
> >> If you want to only prevent suspend though one interface, you have to
> >> also pass information to the driver about its suspend hook is being
> >> called so it can conditionally return -EBUSY. The wakelock interface
> >> requires less code in each driver.
> >
> > Well, I don't think so.  Moreover, it requires you to spread wakelocks all
> > over the place if you don't use the timeouted ones which, let's face it, is
> > hardly acceptable.
> 
> Your method does not reduce the number of places that has to be
> modified. Any component where we add a wakelock, you have to add a
> suspend handler to abort suspend when we would have held a wakelock.

Well, maybe not, but it doesn't introduce entirely new API for device drivers.
Instead, it extends the existing interfaces which I think is more appropriate.

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/