linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: Add ioctl to block suspend while event queue is not empty.

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: <201202162244.00267.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:44:00 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Paul Fox <pgf@...top.org>
Cc:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: Add ioctl to block suspend while event queue is not empty.

On Thursday, February 16, 2012, Paul Fox wrote:
> rafael j. wysocki wrote:
>  > On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
>  > 
>  > > (or just keep this stuff out of the kernel and let a user-space daemon make
>  > > those decisions).
>  > 
>  > Which is never going to really work, IMHO.
>  > 
>  > Realistically, do you know of any distro, vendor, whoever, who tried to
>  > actually do that in a released product (or even in a release candidate,
>  > or milestone, or whatever different from a prototype running only on one's
>  > personal desktop)?  I don't.
> 
> well, depending on your decision of "that", there are something like
> 2.5 million OLPC XO laptops that do it.  do they count?  ;-)
> 
> we're still in the middle of converting our 2.6-era home-grown power
> management mechanisms to the 3.0-era level, using the
> .../power/wakeup[_count] and /sys/power/wakeup_count mechanisms. 
> (change comes slowly to shipping products.)  but we do have a
> user-level suspend manager.
> 
> to the real point of your question:  no, i don't think it does what
> you're talking about yet -- i.e., control by applications over whether
> suspend should be permitted or not exists, but isn't nearly as
> reliable or as foolproof as any of the mechanisms discussed here
> recently.

OK, cool!

I was wrong then, but good to hear that. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/