On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:08:52PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > >>> so i'll file a bug against usb saying it should allow suspend of devices > >>> that are not present. > >>> > >>> should i also file a new bug against X in the same cat/subcat as > >>> 6844148? > >> I'm not sure what X could do differently here - what would that bug say? > >> > > > > from my reading of 6844148, it's almost like the fix failed. it seems > > like when i unplugged the mouse, X should have gotten ENODEV and then > > closed the mouse device. but from the pfiles output we see that the > > device isn't being closed. if i was going to file a bug it would say > > that X should close the device. is there some other behavior that you > > think should be happening here? > > X won't get ENODEV until select() returns that there's something to read > on the device and we attempt to read() from it. If neither the kernel > nor HAL somehow signal X, we'll never notice. >
well presumably select() isn't telling X that there's data to read since theres no underlying device to produce data. so when you tested the fix for 6844148, how did the X server get notified? did select() return and indicate there was data? ed
