On Wednesday, 26 of March 2008, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 26. März 2008 15:40:27 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > Remember, the whole purpose of this is to let drivers know when the > > > system is going to sleep or waking up. Proper handling of devices is > > > up to the drivers, not up to the core. > > > > Then declare these methods void. We cannot introduce methods that deliberately > > ignore errors. Reporting is also better done in the drivers. > > That decision is up to Rafael. Changing the methods to return void is > okay with me. But that's not what they currently do, either. If I change the methods to void and it turns out in the future that it's better if they return error codes, it will be rather difficult to go back and change everything. For this reason, I'd prefer to retain the returning of error codes. What exactly do you whink would be wrong with using the error codes to avoid resuming the children of devices that failed to resume? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
