| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20121102162937.1ec88cf1@jbarnes-desktop> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists