Hi! > In general Linux doesn't behave super great if you get an error while > executing a device's resume handler. Nothing will come along later > and and try again to resume the device (and all devices that depend on > it), so pretty much you're left with a non-functioning device and > that's not good. > > However, even though you'll end up with a non-functioning device we > still don't consider resume failures to be fatal to the system. We'll > keep chugging along and just hope that the device that failed to > resume wasn't too critical. This establishes the precedent that we > should at least try our best not to fully bork the system after a > resume failure. > > I will argue that the best way to keep the system in the best shape is > to assume that if a resume callback failed that it did as close to > no-op as possible. Because of this we should consider the device > still suspended and shouldn't try to suspend the device again next > time around. Today that's not what happens. AKA if you have a > device
I don't think there are many guarantees when device resume fail. It
may have done nothing, and it may have resumed the device almost
fully.
I guess the best option would be to refuse system suspend after some
device failed like that.
That leaves user possibility to debug it...
Pavel--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
