On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:03:35AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Sonntag, 14. Januar 2007 20:47 schrieb [email protected]:
> > > > Can anyone suggest another approach?
> > > >
> > > > Alan Stern
> > >
> > > Just a thought, you could use both a blacklist approach, and a module
> > > paramater, or something in sysfs, to allow specifying devices that won't
> > > be suspend and resume compatible.
> >
> > 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.
Yes, I think this is the best solution, allow users to add their devices
to the kernel through a sysfs interface as a temporary solution, while
providing a built-in list for known broken devices.
And yeah, I hate blacklists too, but they are necessary at times :(
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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]
