From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.184]:11206 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752715AbZAKLLZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:11:25 -0500 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so5141094fkq.5 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:11:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240901110311o47fe2311w4717f5521c98aba@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090111_121149_817488_0BD8E316) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:11:23 +0200 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mac80211 suspend/resume Cc: "Marcel Holtmann" , "Dan Williams" , "Bob Copeland" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, mabbaswireless@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1231579679.3685.10.camel@johannes> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <1229313039-5544-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> <20081224054951.GA32398@hash.localnet> <1230102989.16960.14.camel@californication> <1231260306.14565.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1231261937.5246.16.camel@californication> <1231267979.14565.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1231270575.14901.6.camel@californication> <1231272326.3767.2.camel@johannes> <1ba2fa240901091553s387c1a95k3576ce6a82015434@mail.gmail.com> <1231579679.3685.10.camel@johannes> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 01:53 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> I second this by stressing another issue. in the point that >> suspend/resume events shell be present to user space regardless of >> mac80211 specific talk with wpa_supplicant. Not only Wifi but also in >> my knowledge BT and other coms need user space application >> to close gracefully connection before kernel shuts in down. > > But userspace is usually the one _invoking_ the suspend, so what I was > trying to say is that we don't care what userspace did right before > invoking suspend. Exactly, so routing suspend event from mac80211 to wpa_supplicant or NM just doesn't look right to me, if I understood properly Marcel suggestion. > >> Even sometime leavening shutting down interface managing application >> may reduce the crosstalk so that driver doesn't have go guess when >> application has finished it's shutdown. rtnl is probably not enough as >> there is still race who grabs it first. > > No, the rtnl definitely is enough right now since userspace will do > whatever it needs to _before_ invoking the kernel suspend. > > I say we should just put these patches in as they are. No objections to that. Tomas