| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:49:40 +0200 From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:47:35 +0200 Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:45:00 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:40 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:15:47 +0200 > > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:11 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > > > > I'm not saying that your argument is not valid. But why don't you look > > > > > at suspend blockers as a contract between userspace and kernelspace? An > > > > > Opt-In to the current guarantees the kernel provides in the non-suspend > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > That's backwards. > > > > > > I think that's the point of it. > > > > Apparently, and you're not accepting that we're telling you we think its > > a singularly bad idea. Alan seems to have the skill to clearly explain > > why, I suggest you re-read his emails again. > > I'm sorry if I offend you. I indeed read Alan's emails. It's just they > have more content than yours. So it takes longer. > > Cheers, > Flo p.s.: also they encourage me to think more before answering. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists