| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 18:48:12 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 07:37:59PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > 2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>: > > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 07:21:49PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > >> 2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>: > >> > >> > Suspend blocks prevent system suspend, not any per-device suspend. > >> > >> Can you suspend a device which is holding a wake lock? > > > > Yes. Suspend blocks are orthogonal to runtime PM. > > That's nice, but that means that it can hold the wake lock > indefinitely. Brilliant design, I'd say. Putting a device in a low power state doesn't mean you can't run code in the driver. If a device generates an event and that event gets handled by the driver, the driver can take a suspend block and then release it when userspace reads the event. It's perfectly valid for the device to go into a low power state in the meantime. When I say that these things are orthogonal, I really do mean it. -- 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