On Friday, March 4, 2005 5:54 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > If there's no ->error method, at leat call ->remove so one device only > > > takes itself down. > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > This was my thought too last time we had this discussion. A completely > > asynchronous call is probably needed in addition to Hidetoshi's proposed > > API, since as you point out, the driver may not be running when an error > > occurs (e.g. in the case of a DMA error or more general bus problem). > > The async > > Hmm, before we go async way (nasty locking, no?) could driver simply > ask "did something bad happen while I was sleeping?" at begining of each > function?
This is what Seto is proposing, aiui. I.e. calls around I/O so you can gracefully handle errors during that I/O. > For DMA problems, driver probably has its own, timer-based, > "something is wrong" timer, anyway, no? The idea is to allow them to do something like that, or consolidate such threads in a platform specific error handling thread or interrupt handler that can call a driver's ->dma_error(dev) routine (or ->error(dev, ERROR_DMA) or whatever) routine. Jesse - 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/
