Am Mittwoch, 31. Januar 2007 11:36 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > > currently hid-core's suspend() method only kills the input URB and
> > > > leaves the output URB alone. I am afraid this is incorrect. I've
> > > > done a patch, but I am looking for a s
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > currently hid-core's suspend() method only kills the input URB and
> > > leaves the output URB alone. I am afraid this is incorrect. I've
> > > done a patch, but I am looking for a solution regarding resumption.
> > > It seems to me that it might
Am Montag, 29. Januar 2007 14:59 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > currently hid-core's suspend() method only kills the input URB and
> > leaves the output URB alone. I am afraid this is incorrect. I've done a
> > patch, but I am looking for a solution regard
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> If calling wake_up() in suspend() is not a problem, why is it problematic
> in resume(). Does ordinary swsusp allow that?
I thought it did. For instance, usbcore can call wake_up() on khubd
during resume. On the other hand, I have seen peculiar thing
Am Dienstag, 30. Januar 2007 19:16 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
[..]
> > Furthermore, what about input? It seems to me that it also can call
> > wake_up()?
>
> You mean the control-IN queue? Same thing: either stop the queue or wait
> for it to drain.
No,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Do you really need to do all this? Shouldn't it be true, when you first
> > do the suspend, that all the I/O queues are empty? And since all tasks
> > are frozen and class drivers are suspended, no more I/O entries can be
> > created?
>
> It is impo
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 8:28 am, Alan Stern wrote:
>Shouldn't it be true, when you first
> do the suspend, that all the I/O queues are empty?
Actually, no. That's a gap in the Linux-PM framework: there's no way
to shut down tasks cleanly before starting the driver suspend sequence.
Am Dienstag, 30. Januar 2007 17:28 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > > thanks, I think that basically killing output URBs is a good thing to
> > > > do,
> > > I've looked further and the control URB will have t
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > thanks, I think that basically killing output URBs is a good thing to do,
> > I've looked further and the control URB will have to die, too.
>
> Correct.
>
> > > however the resuming will need some more
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > thanks, I think that basically killing output URBs is a good thing to do,
> I've looked further and the control URB will have to die, too.
Correct.
> > however the resuming will need some more thinking. What are all the
> > scenarios you can see tha
Am Montag, 29. Januar 2007 14:59 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > currently hid-core's suspend() method only kills the input URB and
> > leaves the output URB alone. I am afraid this is incorrect. I've done a
> > patch, but I am looking for a solution regard
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> currently hid-core's suspend() method only kills the input URB and
> leaves the output URB alone. I am afraid this is incorrect. I've done a
> patch, but I am looking for a solution regarding resumption. It seems to
> me that it might wake up tasks to
12 matches
Mail list logo
