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

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: <20100529105655.484f516a@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Sat, 29 May 2010 10:56:55 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com>,
	ext Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	ext Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:28:19 +0200
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:42:35 +0300
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...ia.com> wrote:
> > > ext Brian Swetland wrote:
> > >> How is it flawed?  Serious question.
> > >
> > > I would avoid repeating all the good arguments given so far, but to make it
> > > short:
> > >
> > > * I believe runtime PM is a much better starting point (at least for the
> > > type of HW targeted at mobile devices) because it mimics an always-on system
> > > toward userspace, which requires less disruption in the way apps are
> > > designed
> > 
> > I agree.
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, if we have a perfect user-space that only
> > does work when strictly needed and trying to do it in bursts, then we
> > would be reaching the lowest power state, and there would be no need
> > for suspend. The problem is that Android's user-space is pretty far
> > from that, so they said "let's segregate user-space and go to lower
> > power mode anyway".
> 
> This has already been mentioned (who knew?): Android doesn't
> want to depend on userspace for this.

there is an implicit "all of userspace" in there, btw.. 

> 
> 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/