From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161107AbXCHXfm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:35:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161208AbXCHXfm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:35:42 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:37270 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161107AbXCHXfl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:35:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:35:20 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Tilman Schmidt , LKML , nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: Suspend/resume semantics for ISDN drivers (was: NAK new drivers without proper power management?) Message-ID: <20070308233520.GD2793@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <45CFB06B.5080102@imap.cc> <45E9FB54.4030905@imap.cc> <200703042004.26684.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703042004.26684.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote: > > > I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that > > > easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver, > > > so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happen not > > > to be that well documented. My driver provides an isdn4linux device but > > > isdn4linux knows nothing about suspend/resume so I am on my own on how > > > to reconcile the two. The device itself, though in turn far from trivial, > > > is actually the least of my worries. > > > > So, how *should* an isdn4linux driver handle a request to suspend? > > Specifically, if there are active connections, should it try to > > shut them down in an orderly fashion (which might imply some delays > > waiting for the remote station to acknowledge, etc.)? Should it kill > > them abruptly (as for a USB unplug event)? Or should it just refuse > > to suspend while a connection is still active? > > I think that refusing to suspend wouldn't be a good approach (think of an > emergency suspend when the battery is running low). > > Probably the closing of connections would be the nicest thing from the > user's point of view. It depends on "how long does connection close take". If it is more than few seconds, kill them abruptly. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html