On Tuesday, 3 July 2007 16:21, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 14:56 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Still, can you please read this post from Alan Stern:
> >
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2007-June/012847.html
> >
> > ? I don't think I'm able to repeat the arguments given in there in a
> > convincing way.
>
> As I read it, Alan basically has two objections:
> (1) drivers shouldn't need to worry about this
> (2) suspend should be transparent to userspace
>
> His proposed solution (freezing tasks when they cross the kernel
> boundary) helps for the s-t-r case, but in fact doesn't solve (1)
> because devices can be suspended at runtime
This is a different thing and a different infrastructure is needed for it (not
present at the moment).
> and then you certainly do not want to freeze tasks that try to access the
> device.
>
> (2) is related but not identical, what if you have a device suspended at
> runtime and some tasks tries to access it; should the task block until
> you wake up that device?
I think the device should be woken up in that case.
> I think the core of the discussion isn't appreciated by everybody here
> yet---we need to solve both run-time and suspend-to-ram-time device
> suspend, not just one of them.
For now, we're discussing the suspend-to-ram-time suspend only, for which
we have (some) infrastrcuture (and which should be supported by all drivers,
IMO).
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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]
