From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Austin Zhang Subject: Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:26:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1221128797.30437.4.camel@azhang.bj.intel.com> References: <48C7FCEE.8060404@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:15039 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752173AbYIKKaL (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:30:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48C7FCEE.8060404@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: multinymous@gmail.com, Elias Oltmanns , Thomas Renninger , Linux Kernel Mailing List , IDE/ATA development list On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:59 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > 2. If we're gonna unify interface, how much can we unify the backend? > Some devices are based on polling, others interrupt. For polling, > is it better to delegate the whole polling to userland or is it > better to do some of it in kernel (tp_smapi seems to be doing > this)? Shock protection should be time-sensitive, if we put the whole polling into userland, will it be possible that the damage had happened before userland app can signal ATA idle command timely? > 3. What about the userland daemon? It would be best to have a unified > daemon which can handle all instead of one for hdaps and another > for hp (and so on). If we can unify the interface, this will be > much easier. > > Thanks. Can this process "acceleration-detect --> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" be done totally in kernel, avoiding to consume too many time for "acceleration-detect --> sysfs --> userland app --> sysfs --> inform ATA shock protect --> issue idle command" before HD was damaged? The userland daemon should be just a indicator (but of course it can pass params to driver) for the protection status rather than a judge.