From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:13:40 +1000 Message-ID: <1183972420.5961.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1183929611.3388.303.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200707090847.43378.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200707090847.43378.oliver@neukum.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle Moffett , Pavel Machek , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 :-) Ben.