Re: [rft]power management for usbtouch

["Ville Syrjälä" <syrjala@sci.fi>]

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@sci.fi
http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html