[asterisk-dev] dahdi_device representation

[Shaun Ruffell]

On 08/29/2010 11:49 PM, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 בAugust 2010 08:59:21 Shaun Ruffell wrote:
>> Would implementing something along the lines of what Tilghman suggested 
>> suffice?  If the goal is to prevent an unresponsive system, could we 
>> sleep for 5 milliseconds before returning ENODEV in order prevent the 
>> unresponsive system without affecting the lifetime of the sysfs objects?
>>
>> Something like the second attachment (just added) on 
>> https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=17669?
> 
> Hmmm... nice workaround (I don't see any reason it won't work).
> 
> However, since it only hide the problem (and keep taxing the system)
> I would go this route, only as part of an escalation scheme.
> 
> Each release should take us to the next stage, so we have hope to get
> read of this stupidness in a year or two:
>    1. msleep(5) to protect the guilty.
>    2. msleep(5) + printk() to warn them.
>    3. kill() + printk() to protect the public from the guilty  ;-)
> 
> [hmmm... 3 strikes? ]
> 

We could do a msleep(5) + ratelimited printk when this goes in now and
skip step 1....

As for whether to kill the entire process, that seems like it has the
potential to penalize spans/calls that would otherwise be able to
complete normally.  However, I'll have to defer to your judgement since
I recognize that I do not have the same level of experience with hot
plugging devices and asterisk as you.

-- 
Shaun Ruffell
Digium, Inc. | Linux Kernel Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org