| 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:23:13 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...oldbits.com>, mingo@...e.hu, trenn@...e.de, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Jean Pihet <j-pihet@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf: add calls to suspend trace point Hi! > > >> I am in favor of 3) of 4). > > >> What do you think? > > > > > > Why don't we keep the tracepoints as proposed _and_ add two additional > > > tracepoints around device suspend-resume? > > I like the idea but that requires to extend the current API with > > additional suspend tracepoints or device state change tracepoints. > > That can be done once the current API is firmly in place. > > Today the only trace API for suspend is machine_suspend(unsigned int > > state), so I think the best option is 3) here above. > > > > Unless there is an objection I am pushing 3) asap. > > Fine by me. Why not... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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