Re: autosuspend for HID devices, take #2
Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Novell |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Dienstag, 22. Mai 2007 19:18 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Yes, but if you are in pre_reset, chances are something is wrong > > with the devices. Outright slaughter of all outstanding URBs is better > > than waiting for them to complete. > > Fair enough. I wouldn't call post_reset "broken", though. True. Here the difference lies only in updating last_busy. This is more a matter of making a clean distinction. > > > In fact, failing a non-auto suspend is not a good idea. You could > > > easily end up preventing somebody's laptop from hibernating when they > > > close the lid and put it in their knapsack. > > > > Yes, and I don't. That's one reason I want to separate the auto and system > > cases. > > What happens if usbhid_wait_io() times out? That I treat as a genuine error because it should not happen. Jiri, what is your comment? Kill the URBs in that case? Regards Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel