linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during suspend

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: <20100622010704.GA12795@gvim.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:07:04 -0700
From:	mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
To:	tytso@....edu, markgross@...gnar.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, mark gross <640e9920@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Avoid losing wakeup events during suspend

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:10:58AM -0400, tytso@....edu wrote:
> So where are we at this point?

The patches are in James Bottomly's tree.
 
> Discussion had completely died down for a while, and it's picked up
> again, but it's not clear to me that we're any closer to reaching
> consensus.

I thought we (linux community and Android) where ok with the plist /
pm-qos implementation of the building blocks needed to implement the
suspend blocker feature on top of a pm-qos request class (I think the
name was "interactive")  pretty much the exact same symantecs as the
suspend blocker thing, just with pm-qos kernel api's.
 
> There's been one proposal that we simply merge in a set of no-op
> inline functions for suspend blockers, just so we can get let the
> drivers go in (assuming that Greg K-H believes this is still a
> problem), but with an automatical removal of N months (N to be
> decided, say 9 or 12 or 18 months).

I'd rather see the re-tooling of pmqos happen.

> 
> My concern is that if we do that, we will have simply kicked the ball
> down the road for N months.  Another approach is to simply merge in
> no-op functions and not leave any kind of deprecation schedule.
> That's sort of an implicit admission of the fact that we may not reach
> consensus on this issue.  Or we could simply ship the patches as-is to
> Linus after he gets back from vacation and ask him for a thumbs up or
> thumbs down vote, which might settle things once and for all.
> 
> How do we go forward from here?
> 
put the pm_qos -plist update into linux-next?

--mgross

--
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/