On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, David Brownell wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > >>I am sure the swsusp people will really appreciate the added > >>necessity to first compute the set of devices that need to run. > > I've always been surprised they don't do that already. After all, > they have the swap device in hand; walk from there up to the root, > and there you go.
So among all the other features, there needs to be some way to exclude some set of devices from a system-wide suspend. > > Left unsaid is how a suspended device can be woken up automatically when > > it is needed. Presumably that would be handled by whoever put it to sleep > > in the first place... And if you manually suspend a drive that contains a > > swap partition, you get what you deserve! :-) > > "Auto wakeup" comes up along with things like "veto suspend" > and "prepare, then commit": they're all notions about how to > deal with the fact that quiescing any complex system (prior > to suspend, or whatever) is basically a big "Whack-a-Mole" > game since there _will_ be cases where you have to backtrack > a bit, and wake something up, in order to progress the rest. > > How could one identify situations where the system is refusing > to suspend, by re-activating parts of itself all the time? As long as the wake-ups always involve nodes higher in the tree than the device being suspended, forward progress is inevitable. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
