Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Monday 13 February 2006 10:05 pm, Phillip Susi wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > No, not "AFAIK" ... since when I told you explicitly that was untrue,
> > you then ignored that statement.  And didn't look at the specs that
> > I pointed you towards, which provide the details.  (USB 2.0 spec re
> > hubs; and of course the Linux-USB hub driver ... www.usb.org)
> 
> I ignored nothing.  I fully accepted your explanation as true and 
> pointed out that it changes nothing;

Sorry, I still can't see a way to read your response to me in that way.
When I said "X", you said "AFAIK, X is false".  More than once in the
same post ... e.g. you say "all hardware must be re-probed", I said "all
is wrong" and provided a common counterexample with USB, then you still
said "all/AFAIK".  And then tried to switch to another topic (see below).
I don't have time to waste on such non-dialogue.

> data loss in this perfectly valid  
> use case just because the kernel can not be absolutely certain the user 
> did not do something stupid while suspended is unacceptable.

Odd, data loss wasn't even mentioned in any of the comments of yours
to which I was responding.  I was providing corrections to what you
were writing about suspend-to-RAM cases.

- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/