From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: Disk spin-up optimization during system resume Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: <52D82613.9090804@ubuntu.com> References: <52CEC5EF.4030201@ubuntu.com> <20140116180415.GA14515@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]:63108 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750946AbaAPSeA (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:34:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140116180415.GA14515@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com, Alan Stern Cc: Aaron Lu , Tejun Heo , SCSI development list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 1/16/2014 1:04 PM, Todd E Brandt wrote: > Both approaches employ non-blocking resume of the scsi disks so why > don't we treat these two patch sets as parts one and two. My patch > just spins everything up but sets everything to non-blocking, so it > will take care of the most common use cases. Your patch will then > fine-tune that behavior to only spin up those disks that are > actually needed. I don't think there are any serious conflicts > between the two patch sets. Sounds good. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS2CYTAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrwLicIAJqlqHgr8fXpkoNo/jTNjaXv 7hKkLD0QevQrdd7O9hiQ8sT9ncR6XSx+B3naTpDOsAe/s0b964EuFxMyhixV7rij +ODTLQ6p2Bl0y12WoXvi95iK+F71ZofHH6aGeFF7lz6FDvFFCHBI3fTRI1Z3ybo5 XQgGZ2yissvoNFdtBqbx3ezFTP6XBP6y1i7dGQxfRFoq5UIHYL2w1mUobdLuAkaF I3pbMqxUDJO1CDrhwYP1URPRQQiNrpm2Di8P3kuJJgbtetW5cpDFTH6Oo0/8IMNW 2H7JByM2ZmGtN4r5ALeePmBdxgzkU8V3KittSHUGvs0mfXpMet+TRW/vNCHakzQ= =hZGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----