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]

Date:	Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:52:09 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
	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>,
	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, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:40:48AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > We can't do the quirks from the kernel and that's one of the reasons why I
> > think user space should start automatic suspend (it can do the quirks if
> > necessary).
> 
> Any sort of automatic suspend is simply impossible in a world where your 
> drivers don't work properly. There's code for making intel and radeon 
> handle suspend/resume themselves now, and nvidia before g80 should also 
> be easy. More recent nvidia is going to be some work.
> 
> But yeah. Let's not have "Work around broken drivers" as a design goal. 

OK, I'm withdrawing it, then. :-)

> The argument against timeouts in wakelocks works just as well here.

So, what do you thing about the approach desribed earlier in this thread
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/20/182)?

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/