On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 19:08 +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:50 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 1. Did anyone actually check for capabilities before assuming world
> > writeable files were wrong?
>
> I didn't check all these fi
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 07:18 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:50:28AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 20:09 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > There are no capability checks on sysfs files right now, so these all
> > > need to be fixed.
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 20:09 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:26:05PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 23:23 +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > > > Vasiliy Kulikov (20):
> > > > mach-ux500: mbox-db5500: world-writable sysf
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 23:23 +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > Vasiliy Kulikov (20):
> > mach-ux500: mbox-db5500: world-writable sysfs fifo file
> > leds: lp5521: world-writable sysfs engine* files
> > leds: lp5523: world-writable engine* sysfs files
> > misc: ep93xx_pwm: world-writable sysfs fi
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 16:48 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > > > The one thing that does look di
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 10:46 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:21 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Do we at least have a clean way that a driver can
> > > reject a system suspend? I've lost tr
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:21 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> Do we at least have a clean way that a driver can
> reject a system suspend? I've lost track of many
> issues, but maybe this could be phrased as a QOS
> constraint: the current config of driver X needs
> clock Y active to enter the targ
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 17:46 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > 3. We've lost sight of one of the original goals, which was to
> > bring the android tree close enough to the kernel so that the
> >
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 12:05 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:46:01 +0200
> Florian Mickler wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:00:47 +0200
> > Vitaly Wool wrote:
> >
> > > Even worse, the suspend wakelock will keep the
> > > whole kernel active, as opposed to powering off unused de
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 11:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Brian Swetland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Brian Swetland wrote:
[...]
> > > In any case, this is not to suggest that the suspend-blocker bits are
> > > 'impossible' to merge. I just say that if
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 09:58 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Gross, Mark" writes:
>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khil...@deeprootsystems.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:43 AM
> >>To: Peter Zijlstra
&
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:35 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > [mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
> > > > change
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > [mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
> > change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
> > driver. The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such hot path use,
> > as each s
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:27 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
> >> James Bottomley wrote:
> >>
&
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
> James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > No, they have to be two separate constraints, otherwise a constraint
> > >
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/1 James Bottomley :
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Bottomley
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +02
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:45 -0700, mark gross wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:01:25PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> >
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 1
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that some
> > MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in S3
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 23:41 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Not using suspend is exactly the point. As Alan has argued, propagating
> > > sus
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 22:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The job of the kernel is to accommodate hardware as best it can ...
> > sometimes it might not be able to, but most of the time it does a pretty
> > good job.
> >
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 20:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 11:10 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Correct, I strongly oppose using suspend. Not running runnable tasks is
> > > not a sane solution.
> >
> > Look, this is getting into t
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 17:43 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 00:31 -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> > >> Keep in mind, though, that a solution which is a
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:40 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:49:35PM +0200, ext James Bottomley wrote:
> >Right, because Firmware writers are from the rugged unresponsive uplands
> >of planet
> >ignore-user-complaints-and-eat-them-for-breakfast-
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 22:39 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:38:40PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > that's a whole other story. Hardware issues are things which in 99.999%
> > of the cases we can't change. We have to work around them. Software
> > bugs, on the other
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 21:12 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 01:59:39PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Have you actually tried this? On my N1 with CM5.0.6 just running
> > powertop requires me to keep the USB system up (debugging cable) and
&
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 20:47 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 01:04:45PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > For userspace, apps that have polling behavior or are ill-behaved must
> > > be found and fixed. Thanks to tools like powertop, this is a f
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 08:40 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Also, how does it handle the issue of ill-behaved apps?
>
> For userspace, apps that have polling behavior or are ill-behaved must
> be found and fixed. Thanks to tools like powertop, this is a farily
> easy task.
That's a bit glib ... p
On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 11:08 +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> This patch looks fine for me, except that I don't think it's necessary
> to introduce an inline function for that...
Actually, I really think we do. The whole reason we got into this mess
in the first place is that it wasn't obvious from th
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 13:41 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed weird crashes related to wl1251_spi notes sysfs directory
> with current wireless-testing (2.6.33-rc2 plus some wireless patches).
> The simplest way to reproduce the problem is to do this on a nokia n900
> (arm/omap 3430)
31 matches
Mail list logo
