[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: some pmf improvements
On Jul 3, 11:12am, David Young wrote:
} On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:44:18AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
} > On Jul 2, 10:08am, David Young wrote:
} > }
} > } Also, I put a process to sleep if it calls pmf_device_resume(, PMF_F_SELF)
} > } on a device that was suspended by the system/operator. In this way,
} > } I stop programs such as wpa_supplicant(8) from interfering with device
} > } suspension by modifying IFF_UP.
} > Why not just return an error instead of putting the process to
} > sleep?
} Because that raises more questions than it answers? :-)
} 1) Shall we actually set IFF_UP, or cancel the operation?
Cancel the operation. It shouldn't be throwing an error while
performing the operation anyways?
} 2) Which error code? ENXIO? EINPROGRESS?
EX_UNAVAILABLE? EX_TEMPFAIL? EX_NOPERM?
} 3) How will applications handle the error code? Spin? Quit?
} 4) Will we audit and modify 3rd-party apps in base to handle the
} error code? What about pkgsrc apps?
In base, yes. Pkgsrc, maybe. This is a very good question though.
} I don't think that most applications are prepared for an ioctl that
} ordinarily powers-up a device to do any different, and we may as well
} put those applications to sleep.
Wouldn't this create an unkillable process?
}-- End of excerpt from David Young
Main Index |
Thread Index |