| 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: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:25:01 -0400 From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>, david@...g.hm, Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com, david-b@...bell.net, James.Bottomley@...e.de, swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com, dipankar@...ibm.com Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > however I think you're making an assumption that there is a > real difference between a deep idle state and "off".... > > For modern x86 hardware, that assumption isn't really valid. > (other than a very very small sram that stores register content in the > idle case) This is more of CPU statement than a chipset or laptop/device-wide statement, correct? If "hardware" applies to the entire laptop, how "modern" is "modern"? - Ted -- 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