From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH]SCSI:Do not block suspend for abandoned devices Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:22:45 +0200 Message-ID: <201010060922.45191.oneukum@suse.de> References: <201010051721.25431.oneukum@suse.de> <1286299186.6661.20.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:46951 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932112Ab0JFHVq (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 03:21:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1286299186.6661.20.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , hare@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 > > 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