Re: [SoftwareSuspend-devel] 2.6 Suspend PM issues
From: Michael Frank
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 21:16:24 EST
On Friday 17 December 2004 17:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > By what was discussed wrt ALSA issue I gather that you still resume
> > > _all_ drivers after doing the atomic copy?
> > >
> > > As explained earlier this year, if this is the case, it is firstly
> > > unacceptable as it will result in loss of data in many applications and
> > > secondly very clumsy.
> > >
> > > Example With 2.4 OK, with 2.6 It would fail:
> > > A datalogger connected to a seral port of a notebook in the field. Data
> > > transfer in progress which can be put on hold bo lowering RTS (HW
> > > handshake) but _cannot_ be restarted. Battery low, must suspend to
> > > change battery, upon resume transfer can continue.
> > >
> > > Will this be taken care of?
> Driver will get enough info in its resume routine ("hey, it is resume,
> but it is only resume after atomic copy"), so it can ignore the resume
> if it really needs to.
Each driver has to make the decision when to ignore resume? that would add a
lot of bloat as well as lots of work to implement and test the changes for
100s of drivers...
Please consider the practical implications of your proposal and you may find
that this really should be handled in a centralized manner.
> But this is 2.6.11 material.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/