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: <20090303135143.GA5060@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:51:43 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	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>,
	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

Hi!

> >> > Not ignoring, but considering them as insufficient.  And since they've already
> >> > been considered as insufficient, there's no point repeating them over and over
> >> > again.  That doesn't make them any better.
> >>
> >> The problem is that what you consider insufficient is what allows us
> >> to ship a product.
> >
> > This doesn't matter a whit, because the mainline kernel is not just your
> > product.
> 
> Unless you are saying that changes in the mainline kernel does not
> need be usable in practice, then it does matter. If we remove the
> feature that allows us to interact with existing code, it will take
> much longer before it is usable by anyone.

Well, taking longer before "being usable" is good tradeoff if it means
"we get cleaner/actually correct system in mainline sooner".

> >> I don't think I am the only one who want this code in the mainline
> >> kernel. Many people want to use the android platform, and support in
> >> the mainline kernel would be beneficial to some of them. I made many
> >> requested changes to my code that provides no benefit to us, but I
> >> have not made any changes that breaks our own use.
> >
> > OK, please resubmit the patches, then.
> 
> I submitted them three weeks ago. I'll submit a new set after I rename
> the api (presumably to suspend_block(er)) but I would like more
> agreement on the timeout issue first.

I do believe that everyone (including you :-) agrees that timeouts are
ugly hack. So just reorder the series so they come at the end.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/