linux-kernel - Re: [markgross@...ngar.org: Re: [RFC] wake up notifications and suspend blocking (aka more wakelock stuff)]

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: <20111003093226.2b5e9c4d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:32:26 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	markgross@...gnar.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, arve@...roid.com,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, farrowg@...ibm.com,
	"Dmitry Fink (Palm GBU)" <Dmitry.Fink@...m.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, khilman@...com,
	Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>, mjg@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [markgross@...ngar.org: Re: [RFC] wake up notifications and
 suspend blocking (aka more wakelock stuff)]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:48:49 -0700
mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org> wrote:

> Forwarding to bigger group for discussion.

Looks clean enough - only question I have is do we need a separate
'suspend block' or can latency do it -suspend is a very very high latency
event. I guess the suspend block is clearer in intent than abusing latency
but I do wonder if the actual suspend path should also check latency
constraints too. If I've asked for 5mS latency then suspend is a wrong
choice!

Alan
--
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/