linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1008011542100.20420-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <arve@...roid.com>,
	<mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, <pavel@....cz>, <florian@...kler.org>,
	<rjw@...k.pl>, <swetland@...gle.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > > o	"Power-aware application" are applications that are permitted
> > > 	to acquire suspend blockers on Android.  Verion 8 of the
> > > 	suspend-blocker patch seems to use group permissions to
> > > determine which applications are classified as power aware.
> > > 
> > > 	More generally, power-aware applications seem to be those that
> > > 	have permission to exert some control over the system's
> > > 	power state.
> > 
> > I don't like the term "Power aware application". An application is well
> > behaved or it isn't. "aware" has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Applications are often complex enough to be aware of some things, naive
> about others, well behaved in some ways, and ill-behaved in others.
> This has been the case for some decades now, so it should not come as
> a surprise.
> 
> I am of course open to suggestions for alternatives to the term "power
> aware application", but most definitely not to obfuscating the difference
> between power awareness (or whatever name one wishes to call it) and
> the overall quality of the application, whatever "quality" might mean
> in a given context.

This is a false dichotomy.  The two of you have fallen into a logical 
trap.  I forget the word used to describe an argument based on a 
fundamental misunderstanding, but it applies here.

The term "power-aware" has _nothing_ to do with how well behaved an
application is, or its quality (in any sense).  Go back and re-read the
definition; you'll see what I mean.

Alan Stern

--
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/