On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:52:38PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Freitag 27 Juni 2008 23:28:30 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: > > > > Which will also fail the open() itself. Isn't that bad? That is, you can > > > > suspend an already open device without the users the device noticing > > > > but you can't open it if you happen to suspend it at just the right time. > > > > That doesn't strike me as good behaviour for a driver. > > > > > > Root can also unbind the driver. > > > > Sure, but in that case the behavior is consistent ie. the device > > disappears. > > Sorry, I chose a bad example. Root can do stupid things like sending > control requests that change the configuration, setting or address of > a device. The effects are undefined and will differ from driver to driver > and open or closedness. > Forcibly suspending a device is a testing feature. If root abuses it, > he'll have to take the consequences. Typically when you're testing something you expect a certain result. The code as it stands adds another very subtle failure point. I don't quite understand why you're so against handling this issue. -- Ville Syrjälä syrjala@xxxxxx http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
