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]

Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:39:31 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	tytso@....edu, 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>,
	felipe.balbi@...ia.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Saturday 05 June 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > I have seen recent proposals that don't require changing the whole
> > > user-space. That might actually be used by other players.
> > 
> > Sure, an approach benefitting more platforms than just Android would be better,
> > but saying that the kernel shouldn't address the Android's specific needs as a
> > rule if no one else has those needs too is quite too far reaching to me. 
> 
> Well, if the android people keep rejecting all sensible approaches to
> power savings except their suspend blocker mess, then I don't see why we
> should support their ill designed mess.

Well, I certainly would like the Android people to be more appreciative of our
ideas if they expect reciprocity.

> We should strive to provide an interface that can be used by all
> interested parties to conserve power; if Android really is the only
> possible user of the interface then I don't see any reason at all to
> merge it, they might as well keep it in their private tree.

There is a number of kernel users that depend on Android user space
(phone vendors using Android on their hardware, but providing their own
drivers), so I don't think we really can identify Android with Google in that
respect.

Rafael
--
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/