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  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:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:27:45 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:	Alan Stern <>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Allen Yu <>, Pavel Machek <>,
	Len Brown <>,
	Dan Williams <>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <>,
	Kernel development list <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add "rpm_not_supported" flag

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 04:03:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:27:06 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Here's a brief summary of the story behind this patch...
> > > 
> > > At one point, I suggested to Dan that instead of doing something
> > > special for these devices, we could simply have the runtime_suspend()
> > > routine always return -EBUSY.  He didn't like that idea because then
> > > the user would see the device was never powering down but would have no
> > > idea why.  The rpm_not_supported flag provides this information to the
> > > user by causing the power/runtime_status attribute to say "not
> > > supported".  (Although to be entirely fair, we could just put a message
> > > in the kernel log during probe if the hardware doesn't support runtime
> > > suspend.)
> > > 
> > > Instead, Dan introduced a messy PM QoS mechanism in commit
> > > e3d105055525.  I didn't like that approach, but Greg merged it before I
> > > objected.
> > 
> > That really looks a bit like a hack to me to be honest.
> > 
> > Greg, what's your plan toward this?
> If I need to revert something that you all find was wrong, I'll be glad
> to do so, sorry for merging something too early.

Alan, what do you think?

I think we're still unsure if the approach taken by that commit is correct,
but then I suppose we don't need to revert it at this point and we can fix
it later.  Is that correct, or would fixing it be difficult for some reason?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists