From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264949AbTL1DLT (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:11:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264956AbTL1DLT (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:11:19 -0500 Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69]:58619 "EHLO imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264949AbTL1DLN (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:11:13 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.7 (future kernel) wish From: Rob Love To: Jim Crilly Cc: Joshua Schmidlkofer , "David B. Stevens" , Helge Hafting , Jos Hulzink , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <3FEE47F5.6090406@why.dont.jablowme.net> References: <200312232342.17532.josh@stack.nl> <20031226233855.GA476@hh.idb.hist.no> <3FECCAF9.7070209@maine.rr.com> <1072507896.27022.226.camel@menion.home> <3FEE47F5.6090406@why.dont.jablowme.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072581073.4042.10.camel@fur> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:11:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 22:03, Jim Crilly wrote: > Generally it just complains that you pulled out the device prematurely, > I've never seen one give a STOP error from that but I guess a bad driver > or USB controller could cause anything. It would be pretty easy to screw things up if you pull out a device in the middle of use. > When you insert a device like a USB stick Windows puts a little icon > next to the clock in the system tray that you're supposed to use to stop > the device before pulling it, effectively it unmounts and stops (or > atleast releases the device from) the driver so the device can be > 'safely' removed. This is useful, and something I think we need on the Linux desktop (stay tuned). > I also believe Windows mounts any removable device > synchronously so that if you do pull it out prematurely the damage done > is limited. Eww, I hope not, that would be excruciatingly slow. It might adjust the buffer writeback to be really short (even nearly immediate) but synchronous I/O is a different story, and much slower. Rob Love