Am Montag, 16. August 2010, 17:27:23 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Don't we sync cache in sd when suspend() is called? > > Yes. OK, I am dense ;-) Sync or no sync? > Open and close occur in process context whereas command handling > doesn't. That means doing autoresume while handling a command will > require considerably more new code, more than I wanted to write for the > initial patch. And the open/close scheme works okay for the case > people are most concerned about now: empty card readers. True. > Consider the types of devices we will be autosuspending: > > Rotating disk drives > > Solid-state drives / flash drives > > Buggy card readers > > Non-buggy things with removable media > > It looks like the buggy card readers need the no-medium restriction but > nothing else does. Yes. > And it looks like the rotating drives are going to > require long inactivity timeouts (minutes) whereas the others will > require short timeouts (fractions of a second). That is a reason we push to timeouts out to user space. By the way, where should timeouts be handled in the tree? > Does that seem like a reasonable summary? Yes. > You're right that the > open/close aspect may not be useful. But let's check on linux-scsi > before making any changes. Yes. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
