On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:26:16 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> Do I understand this correctly?  You've got special handling for the 
> case where a bus handler doesn't have a resume routine, but no special 
> handling for the case where it doesn't have a suspend routine?

Hmm... There should be checks for both, but the code seems to suggest otherwise.

quoted text
> Why bother to remove the device if neither routine exists (there won't be 
> any need to revive it since the bus never got suspended)?

The bus always gets suspended. The checks are to determine if state is saved or not. If it isn't, then a suspend/resume is treated as a removal/insertion.

quoted text
> And why not simply fail the suspend if the resume routine doesn't exist
> and the suspend routine does?  Maybe with an error message in the
> system log.

For the asymmetric case, I guess that would do. But I still want to remove devices when the bus handler has no suspend handling.

Rgds
-- 
     -- Pierre Ossman

  Linux kernel, MMC maintainer        http://www.kernel.org
  PulseAudio, core developer          http://pulseaudio.org
  rdesktop, core developer          http://www.rdesktop.org
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/