| 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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:34:52 -0700 From: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org> To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power_off NULL Ping.. There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this. Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have machine_power_off returning. Discussions available at the links below: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/25/554 -- linux-arm discussion https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/649 -- linux-pm discussion Should I continue with the original hibernation patch from the linux-pm discussion? Does anyone have any response to Russel's commentsl? Thanks! Sebastian -- 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