On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 25. Februar 2007 17:43 schrieb Alan Stern: > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Coming to think of it, maybe the confusion could be avoided, if > > > zero were accepted as a permissible value for autosuspend delay. > > > Is there a reason there has to be a delay? > > > > Yes. It's a bad idea to in general to disable any resource as soon as you > > are through using it, if enabling and disabling take a nontrivial amount > > of time. > > This is true. Is that a reason to disallow it? We generally don't protect > people from themselves in kernel space.
It just doesn't seem like a useful capability. What harm will it do to suspend a USB device after 1 second rather than right away? It's hard to imagine a situation where you would really want to do that. In addition it gives us a useful way to represent no autosuspend (although I suppose we could use negative delay values for that purpose). Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
