Re: [PATCH]SCSI:Do not block suspend for abandoned devices

[Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de>]

Am Dienstag, 5. Oktober 2010, 19:19:46 schrieb James Bottomley:
> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 17:21 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > From d0e0b88a5b271a45f00ab8ae9f22b992d5d090ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:06:46 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] SCSI:Do not block suspend for abandoned devices
> > 
> > If a device becomes inaccessible while a suspension
> > is carried out, the device is gone anyhow. There's
> > no need to block the suspension, as we'd ignore the
> > devices on later attempts anyway.
> 
> So this clarifies what you're trying to do; thanks.  However, I still
> think the premise is wrong: if we get a failure for any reason (whether
> memory allocation or disk) we probably haven't flushed the disk cache
> and our next action in suspend (whether to ram or disk) will power the
> drive down and lose the cache data.  I really don't think blocking
> suspend and informing the user is inappropriate here.

I see. It seems to me that this is true for SDEV_OFFLINE only.

	Regards
		Oliver