Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:21:42PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're used to the idea of applications blocking when a resource they're
using goes away - NFS has done it forever.
You persist in evading my point. I'm not worried about applications;
I'm worried about drivers.
Let me put it explicitly: You're writing a driver. You're working on
the read, write, or probe method. You add code to check if a system
sleep is underway. Suppose the answer is Yes -- what does your driver
Leave the process blocked and defer any i/o until after resume. Why does
it need to be any more complicated than that?
It gets complicated when this has to be added and TESTED in EVERY
driver. The implied contract for drivers previously was that their
device would not get accessed after it was suspended until it had been
resumed first. This proposed change violates that.
I don't think this sort of handling is something that individual drivers
should have to deal with (at least not ones that are part of a framework
like USB, libata, etc.)
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]