On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:03:35AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 14. Januar 2007 20:47 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > Can anyone suggest another approach? > > > > > > > > Alan Stern > > > > > > Just a thought, you could use both a blacklist approach, and a module > > > paramater, or something in sysfs, to allow specifying devices that won't > > > be suspend and resume compatible. > > > > Upon further thought, a module parameter won't do as the problem > > will arise without a driver loaded. A sysfs parameter turns the whole > > affair into a race condition. Will you set the guard parameter before the > > autosuspend logic strikes? > > Unfortunately this leaves only the least attractive solution. > > There could be a mixed approach: a builtin blacklist that is extensible > via a procfs- or sysfs-based interface.
Yes, I think this is the best solution, allow users to add their devices to the kernel through a sysfs interface as a temporary solution, while providing a built-in list for known broken devices. And yeah, I hate blacklists too, but they are necessary at times :( thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
