Am Montag, 9. Juli 2007 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt: > 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 :-) Surviving is a bit strongly worded. Suspension is to be transparent. Apart from a jump in the system clock user space must not notice, thus returning errors due to suspension is not an option. Regards Oliver _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
