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: <AANLkTilLmAb2c9fQwuguzWtjcHfuTZvPUTbUx7vuwFI6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:00:01 -0700
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend.
>
> I think it is you who is confused. For power management purposes suspend
> is nothing more but a deep idle state.

No, idle is transparent, suspend is not.

>
> (and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're
> fixing it, get over it already).
>

I don't think it is realistic to drop support for all existing hardware.

>> Unrelated to
>> Android, I also want to use opportunistic suspend on my desktop.
>
> So you're going to sprinkle this suspend blocker shite all over regular
> userspace?

I have said several times, that regular user-space will not need to be
modified to maintain their current behavior.

> Why not instead work on getting apps to behave properly and
> idle when there's nothing to do?
>
> After all, if you have the code to add suspend blockers into, you also
> have the means to fix it being stupid in the first place.
>

Why would I add suspend blockers to the code I want to prevent running?

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/