linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

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, 15 Aug 2009 22:27:56 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] PCI: Runtime power management

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:21:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> I can even imagine a scenario where this setting might be useful, like when
> we don't want a network adapter to be woken up from the outside.

I think in that case we'd probably just want the interface to be downed? 
Some of this is going to require device-specific policy, I think - for 
the network case we probably want something in between IF_RUNNING and 
IF_DOWN (IF_CARRIER, perhaps) that indicates that we want the PHY to be 
powered. Pushing this out to sysfs would mean we'd have a consistent 
interface but varying semantics, and I'm not convinced that's an 
especially helpful interface.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/