From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Comments about commit 'PCI: docking station: remove dock uevents'? Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:50:25 +0000 Message-ID: <20061113195025.GA23091@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20061112140737.GA21908@homac2.suse.de> <20061113121437.GA18369@srcf.ucam.org> <20061113194326.GD4646@homac2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:30850 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755245AbWKMTuc (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:50:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061113194326.GD4646@homac2> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kristen.c.accardi@intel.com, fseidel@suse.de On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +0100, Holger Macht wrote: > What I'm doing at the moment (for about a week ;-) is to echo "- - -" to > /sys/class/scsi_host/host*/scan for all unoccupied hosts on a dock > event. And this works pretty good. But it's of course only a workaround if > the scsi bus generates an event. That's just about workable for adding a device, but it loses badly for removing one. > With recent kernel I have to unregister from the drive from userspace to > prevent confusion about if the drive is still there or not. Right. And that doesn't help in the case where the user undocks without waiting for everything to stop flashing first. Of course, in that case it's probably reasonable to tell the user that they lose, but we can do better than leaving a random drive lying around and a partially wedged sata bus... -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org