On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. März 2007 16:57 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > > All right, maybe it wouldn't if you did it for a short time -- but then
> > > > what would be the point? Surely if you want to power down the network
> > > > interface and leave it that way, you must realize that you can't keep
> > > > live sessions bound to the interface.
> > >
> > > Why? A full suspension of the system does that and we should seek
> > > to be able to do the same.
> >
> > What happens when the opposite end of a network connection tries to send
> > data to a suspended system? Yes, TCP is pretty aggressive about retries,
> > but doesn't it eventually give up?
>
> Sure, eventually. Nothing is perfect. Suspension will cost performance
> and/or functionality. Is that reason not to limit that loss?
I'm still not sure how good an idea it is. But let's say we do it.
Then the new power/level attribute file would have 4 possible values:
on, auto, suspend, and suspend-without-autoresume
Can you can think up a better name for that last value? Bear in mind that
even though autoresume might be disabled, remote wakeup could still be
enabled since it is controlled by a different attribute.
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
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
