From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ming Lei Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] net/core: support runtime PM on net_device Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:01:06 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1350548469-1267-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <8762689o9u.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "David S. Miller" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Oliver Neukum , Alan Stern , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Mork?= Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:55608 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755595Ab2JRLBI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:01:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8762689o9u.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Bj=C3=B8rn Mork wrote: > Ming Lei writes: > >> In ioctl path on net_device, the physical deivce is often >> touched, but the physical device may have been put into runtime >> suspend state already, so cause some utilitis(ifconfig, ethtool, >> ...) to return failure in this situation. > > I have to as the stupid questions again, sorry... > > Just wondering, isn't that really a driver problem? The driver will It is or not, :-) > know whether or not hardware access is required, and should wake up t= he The netcore knows that first, doesn't it=EF=BC=9F > device if necessary. Unless I misunderstand something here, this see= ms > like papering over driver bugs? Suppose it is driver bug, and basically most network drivers don't cons= ider that, and we can fix that in netcore generally, so why bother all drive= rs to do that? Thanks, -- Ming Lei