linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

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]

Date:	Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:37 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Suspend/resume without VT switches

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:51:07 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:

> On Friday, November 02, 2012 02:43:39 PM Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > I've lightly tested this with X and it definitely makes my
> > suspend/resume sequence a bit prettier.  It should speed things up
> > trivally as well, but most of those gains come from other changes to the
> > i915 driver (posted earlier to intel-gfx).
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> I like the idea.
> 
> > I suspect we'll have to be more defensive about the
> > resume configuration in case the BIOS did something weird, but overall I
> > think we should be able to do this one way or another.
> 
> Perhaps patch [1/2] should be [2/2] and vice versa? :-)

But then it wouldn't compile?  I added the variable first, defaulting
to the current behavior, then made i915 support it and set the variable
to false there...  At least, that's what I intended to do.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/