Re: suspending hid devices
Alan Stern <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 thinking. What are all the > > > scenarios you can see that waiters on hid->wait will be woken too early? > > 1) Resubmitting the IO upon resume() fails, error must be reported > > 2) The output transfer finishes before tasks are unfrozen > > I think that creating a notifier chain which will be called in > thaw_processes() after all the processes are unfrozen, will solve this > problem, right? 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? 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