linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

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: <20100607080026.GA15851@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 2010 04:00:26 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
	Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, tytso@....edu,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 12:26:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> That takes a lot of the bullshit arguments about downstream users
> being hurt out of the discussion. The above problems are way more
> complex to resolve than the suspend blocker details.
> 
> That's another prove why we can let the drivers flow in (in the worst
> case w/o the suspend blocker stubs) and have no pressure to resolve
> the suspend blocker problem yesterday.
> 
> That said, after thinking more about it, I'm advocating the stubs
> solution with a clear removal / decision date constraint
> (e.g. 2.6.37), as it forces all involved parties to stay tuned and not
> to forget about it. I'm curious about the outcome :)

As long as we have that clear removal schedule I'm fine with in-kernel
suspend blocker stubs.

--
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/