| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100527182303.GM3543@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:23:03 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@...ia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. > > How does that solve the problems you mentioned above ? Wakeup > guarantees, latencies ... Latency doesn't matter because we don't care when the next timer is due to expire. Wakeup guarantees can be provided via the suspend blocker implementation. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists