[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: some pmf improvements
On Jul 4, 12:38pm, David Young wrote:
} On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:37:07PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
} > 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(,
} > } > } 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? :-)
} > }
} > } 3) How will applications handle the error code? Spin? Quit?
} > Quit?
} I don't think you understand. I am trying to avoid killing off
} applications. If one closes the lid to a laptop, and re-opens the lid, it
} defies expectations for suspend/resume for a lot of processes to die off.
} > } 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.
} If you say so, but this is a tremendous amount of work. I am striving
} to avoid that work myself, and to avoid creating work for others.
Can we do it properly while avoiding that work?
} > } 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?
} Not necessarily. I have used an uninterruptible sleep to test the idea,
} but I don't see any reason that it should remain so.
I really dislike the idea of creating unkillable processes
unnecessarily. I would be much happier if it was interruptible.
}-- End of excerpt from David Young
Main Index |
Thread Index |