On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 01:53 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> I second this by stressing another issue. in the point that >> suspend/resume events shell be present to user space regardless of >> mac80211 specific talk with wpa_supplicant. Not only Wifi but also in >> my knowledge BT and other coms need user space application >> to close gracefully connection before kernel shuts in down. > > But userspace is usually the one _invoking_ the suspend, so what I was > trying to say is that we don't care what userspace did right before > invoking suspend. Exactly, so routing suspend event from mac80211 to wpa_supplicant or NM just doesn't look right to me, if I understood properly Marcel suggestion. > >> Even sometime leavening shutting down interface managing application >> may reduce the crosstalk so that driver doesn't have go guess when >> application has finished it's shutdown. rtnl is probably not enough as >> there is still race who grabs it first. > > No, the rtnl definitely is enough right now since userspace will do > whatever it needs to _before_ invoking the kernel suspend. > > I say we should just put these patches in as they are. No objections to that. Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
