Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:05:21 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Justin Hibbits <jhibbits@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Request for testing an alternate branch Message-ID: <65DF58AD-1058-4FA6-84DE-436AB0BB17F9@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <201312111626.12035.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20131204222113.39fb23dd@zhabar.gateway.2wire.net> <201312111626.12035.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:26 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > Also, I'm still not a fan of the EAGAIN approach. I'd rather have a = method > in bus_if.m to suspend or resume a single device and to track that a = device > is suspended or resumed via a device_t flag or some such. (I think I = had > suggested this previously as it would also allow us to have a tool to > suspend/resume individual drivers at runtime apart from a full = suspend/resume > request). Anything that made it easier to test suspend/resume would be a huge bonus. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?65DF58AD-1058-4FA6-84DE-436AB0BB17F9>