[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0707031814440.8010-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM
pathway
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:37PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > But that's fine - "Are we undergoing a systemwide suspend" is an easy
> > > question to ask. Freezing processes instead means that most of those
> > > paths will never be tested.
> >
> > The question is easy to ask, but it's not so easy to figure out what
> > you should do if the answer is Yes. Freezing processes instead means
> > that those "untested" paths -- in many, many drivers -- won't have to
> > exist at all.
>
> 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
do next?
Make your answer as detailed as you reasonably can. And be careful to
arrange things so that an ongoing I/O operation doesn't get messed up
when your suspend method is called.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists