From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754470AbXGIJOp (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:14:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751315AbXGIJOi (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:14:38 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:54598 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbXGIJOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:14:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Alan Stern , Kyle Moffett , Nigel Cunningham , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <200707090847.43378.oliver@neukum.org> References: <1183929611.3388.303.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707090847.43378.oliver@neukum.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:13:40 +1000 Message-Id: <1183972420.5961.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 08:47 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > > > But I'm not sure it's a good idea in the long run. Think of a printer > > > daemon, for example. It shouldn't have to experience unexpected I/O > > > problems merely because someone has decided to put the system to sleep. > > > > Why not ? Printer is offline when machine is asleep... trying to print > > Not necessarily. The machine must survive going to sleep while you are > printing. Any other error return than -ERESTARTSYS is not an option. > We can't simply change the ABI. Ugh ? Why returning an error from the printer driver to the userland print server/daemon would prevent the machine from "surviving" ? I would be happy with -EIO personally :-) Ben.