Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? | Date | Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:04:37 -0800 |
| |
On Monday 13 February 2006 10:05 pm, Phillip Susi wrote: > David Brownell wrote: > > No, not "AFAIK" ... since when I told you explicitly that was untrue, > > you then ignored that statement. And didn't look at the specs that > > I pointed you towards, which provide the details. (USB 2.0 spec re > > hubs; and of course the Linux-USB hub driver ... www.usb.org) > > I ignored nothing. I fully accepted your explanation as true and > pointed out that it changes nothing;
Sorry, I still can't see a way to read your response to me in that way. When I said "X", you said "AFAIK, X is false". More than once in the same post ... e.g. you say "all hardware must be re-probed", I said "all is wrong" and provided a common counterexample with USB, then you still said "all/AFAIK". And then tried to switch to another topic (see below). I don't have time to waste on such non-dialogue.
> data loss in this perfectly valid > use case just because the kernel can not be absolutely certain the user > did not do something stupid while suspended is unacceptable.
Odd, data loss wasn't even mentioned in any of the comments of yours to which I was responding. I was providing corrections to what you were writing about suspend-to-RAM cases.
- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |