From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] libata hotplug to align with dock driver Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20080609013719.GA30665@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1212729788.25188.29.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:38380 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754765AbYFIBhZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:37:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1212729788.25188.29.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: linux acpi , Len Brown , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , "Accardi, Kristen C" , Holger Macht , Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:23:08PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > case ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST: > ata_ehi_push_desc(ehi, "ACPI event"); > - > - if (!is_dock_event) > - break; > - > - /* undock event - immediate unplug */ > ata_acpi_detach_device(ap, dev); Ok, just to check that I've understood the other patches - this will only be called if the device has actually been removed, and not if you merely get an EJECT_REQUEST, right? An EJECT_REQUEST from a bay device should always just signal userspace, and never actually cause the device to be deleted. I don't really like the way that you're remapping event types inside the dock driver - it'd be cleaner if the per-driver handlers received ADD_DEVICE or REMOVE_DEVICE or something. Other than that, this looks basically fine. I'll try to test it in the next couple of days. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org