On Wednesday, 20 of February 2008, Pierre Ossman wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:26:16 -0500 (EST) > Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Do I understand this correctly? You've got special handling for the > > case where a bus handler doesn't have a resume routine, but no special > > handling for the case where it doesn't have a suspend routine? > > Hmm... There should be checks for both, but the code seems to suggest > otherwise. > > > Why bother to remove the device if neither routine exists (there won't be > > any need to revive it since the bus never got suspended)? > > The bus always gets suspended. The checks are to determine if state is saved > or not. If it isn't, then a suspend/resume is treated as a removal/insertion. > > > And why not simply fail the suspend if the resume routine doesn't exist > > and the suspend routine does? Maybe with an error message in the > > system log. > > For the asymmetric case, I guess that would do. But I still want to remove > devices when the bus handler has no suspend handling.
I think I know how to handle that, but there's a more urgent issue I need to fix first. Stay tuned. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
