On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 15. Januar 2007 17:03 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > Upon further thought, a module parameter won't do as the problem
> > > will arise without a driver loaded. A sysfs parameter turns the whole
> > > affair into a race condition. Will you set the guard parameter before the
> > > autosuspend logic strikes?
> > > Unfortunately this leaves only the least attractive solution.
> >
> > There could be a mixed approach: a builtin blacklist that is extensible
> > via a procfs- or sysfs-based interface.
>
> If you want to ask with a lot of bug reports which blacklist was loaded,
> then we could.
This is a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" situation. Anyway, I've
never liked the idea of loading up the kernel with a bunch of preset
blacklist entries. For most users that are a waste of space, and unneeded
entries almost never get removed.
> > Note that we actually have two problems to contend with. Some devices
> > must never be autosuspended at all (they disconnect when resuming), and
> > others need a reset after resuming.
>
> Do those who can be brought back with a reset need to be listed at all?
> Error handling is not a bad idea.
The problem is that the system can't always tell that a reset is needed.
There might be no symptoms at all. For example, I've got a USB keypad
which doesn't work right after a resume -- key presses never get sent to
the computer. As far as the system can tell the device is fine, though.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
