[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707091123.57400.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:23:56 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
Am Montag, 9. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 08:47 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 8. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > > > But I'm not sure it's a good idea in the long run. Think of a printer
> > > > daemon, for example. It shouldn't have to experience unexpected I/O
> > > > problems merely because someone has decided to put the system to sleep.
> > >
> > > Why not ? Printer is offline when machine is asleep... trying to print
> >
> > Not necessarily. The machine must survive going to sleep while you are
> > printing. Any other error return than -ERESTARTSYS is not an option.
> > We can't simply change the ABI.
>
> Ugh ? Why returning an error from the printer driver to the userland
> print server/daemon would prevent the machine from "surviving" ? I would
> be happy with -EIO personally :-)
Surviving is a bit strongly worded.
Suspension is to be transparent. Apart from a jump in the system clock
user space must not notice, thus returning errors due to suspension is
not an option.
Regards
Oliver
-
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