Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422681AbWBNRRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:17:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422689AbWBNRRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:17:43 -0500 Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.201]:9897 "HELO smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1422681AbWBNRRm (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:17:42 -0500 From: David Brownell To: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:04:37 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200602131116.41964.david-b@pacbell.net> <200602131910.50304.david-b@pacbell.net> <43F1733E.8010300@cfl.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <43F1733E.8010300@cfl.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602140904.38305.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1495 Lines: 31 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/