linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100527100453.1d55c87e@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 10:04:53 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:46:51 +0200
Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com> wrote:


> If yes then OK, it's not totally elegant but if that is
> where we have to go, I can live with it. There will likely
> be people who implement for only one or the other semantic
> behaviour, but we have worse things to cope with already.

Alan Cox suggested, that this kind of explicit requirement definition
might be necessary for all drivers anyway in the long run.

That way, the semantic differences between those two cases would
vanish. 

Cheers,
Flo



--
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/