[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183975522.5961.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:05:22 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
"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
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:02 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...filesystems are offline, too, when the machine is asleep. Yet,
> unmounting everything on suspend would not result in useful suspend
> support.
>
> Yes, I believe we should be transparent.
You just compared apple and oranges... Try printing and half way through
the page, suspend your USB bus, and see how the printer reacts.
Ben.
-
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